Susanne Dirks of IBM presented to the Group, but also participated in a youtube interview with me here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyY0n_s6lCM

We want to have input from anyone who was not involved in this report as we take this work forward. Please linkin to us, attend the events, and comment on this initial blog… also, Happy Christmas everybody!

Of the critique points, I would highlight “piecemeal.” “Tentative” and “follower” are also on the mark: we have lacked the courage to do something really bold (such as, whatever the technological merits, going nationally Wimax five years ago); we have not even get to digital TV yet. But the biggest issue I see is that we did a little of this, and a little of that, and there was little (and after the Information Society Commission’s effective cessation, practically no) joined-up policy thinking. I hope policy makers and business leaders both answer the call to arms above.

On an overall point, having scanned the whole report, I would have been more comfortable if it had been a little meatier, with more of the detail, backing facts, referencing, and so forth, given. I see this as more of a briefing paper, a media-friendly summary of what was obviously a lot of work, but it would be nice to see more than one comment page and one action page per topic. On the other hand, this may make it more accessible for mass reading and comment, if there is sufficient interest.

The chance to comment and interact is very welcome, and is an example that should be followed in just about all public policy work. It is easy, inexpensive (this site, I think, uses free tools, and looks very well), and appropriate in a democracy, the more so when many leading political and public service figures may not yet have had the chance to fully explore the latest tools and thinking.

Let me explain how the stakeholders were approached. The IIEA attempted to contact well over 600 parties across the digital sector in Ireland, including major media, industry research and technology bodies and ITs. There may have been omissions, but not for reasons of bias. Of those who were contacted with an invitation to participate, the stakeholders listed in the acknowledgements responded.

This blog enables individuals from any organisation to comment and can allow any stakeholders who did not participate initially to do so now.

First, nice to see a mix of sources in the acknowledgments. However, there are some curious, and rather huge omissions, which, given some apparent inclusion biases, raises some questions about how the “stakeholders” were selected. Late in the report, it is noted that the future is about a convergence of telephony and IT, and implicitly, media and the arts. But where is the range of Arts bodies inputting? And for that matter media?, with the Irish Times an early standard-bearer, and the Independent Group having some interest too. And the report mentions wireless R&D but where are the two main players of that game, Nokia and Ericsson. The latter has a massive operation in Ireland, over 1600 people including, yes, a wireless R&D centre… Likewise the major consultancies. Deloitte and PwC both publish relevant reports from Ireland, not to mention IBM and HP. These gaps are the more worrying given the apparent bias towards public sector bodies, and the excessive deference in the report to the idea of leadership from Government, the same people now doing a great imitation of headless chickens. Of the two public sector groups who might have a clue – which clearly and disgracefully does not include the communications regulators – only one, the IDA family, seems to have been deeply involved. The other area, public third level, seems largely missing – where are the leading “IT Universities” – DCU, UL and Maynooth – which also happen to actually engage with industry? I won’t even start on what employers of my acquaintance have to say about TCD and UCD on IT.

Let me stress that this is not to be negative but to enquire genuinely how in a study apparently lasting many months so many obvious major stakeholders could have been missed?

What this highlights is that neither politicians nor civil and public servants understood (Whitaker and Lemass were standouts, not normal examples) little of what made the economy boom, and as we now see, can do little to keep it doing so.

And this points to perhaps the worst tragedy. Because more than infrastructure, what O’Malley’s act highlighted, and what drove the boom, was education. But Ireland’s educational system, at the height of the boom, was underfunded (parish draws and gate collections are not proper funding), weak on IT, and the basics of language, maths and science, and fooling itself by inflating exam results (kids now are not 50% smarter than 20 years ago, evolution does not work like that). Now, as the multimationals often note, standards of graduate are down, and as Unis comment, numbers in IT and engineering are collapsing (we don’t need more lawyers and wannabe bankers).

I hope this report can help in the call to arms to fix our approach, or we can hand on the baton to India, Estonia, Brazil and so many others. Good luck!