Inclusion in the Information Age:
Reframing the Debate

Dr. Kenan Patrick Jarboe
October 2001

Preface
Acknowledgements
Introduction
The Context

The Issues: Access, Governance and Economic Development

A New Debate and New Challenges

Points of Consideration
Conclusion
Appendix 1 – Conference participants
Appendix 2 – About Athena Alliance
Footnotes

Preface:

America is engaged in a national conversation on information technology (IT) and the future of the global information economy. Part of that discussion concerns the impact of these changes on people at the bottom end of the economy. As the conversation on the “digital divide” goes forward, it is critical that it address a broad set of issues and involve a wide range of stakeholders and experts. Otherwise, we run the risk of partial, incomplete solutions that do not meet the needs of communities-left-behind. We may also find ourselves with a parallel digital divide – one of differing understandings of the problems and the solutions, mirroring C.P. Snow’s famous Two Cultures.

To explore these issues, Athena Alliance – a non-profit organization dedicated to public education and research on the emerging global information economy and the networked society – hosted a conference on “New IT – New Equity – New Economy.” Held on February 1, 2000 at the National Academy of Sciences building in Washington, DC, the conference brought together approximately 65 individuals from across the nation and from a variety of view points to discuss issues of access, governance and economic development in the emerging digital economy. The issues addressed included:

In the year and a half since the conference, the issue of the digital divide has continued to evolve. Some of the specific issues and suggestions made either have come to fruition or been rendered moot. Most importantly, one of our key concerns – that the policy discussions around the nation had been focused almost exclusively on physical access to computer technology and the Internet – has been lessened somewhat. The discussions have moved to include issues of content and participation. This maturing and deepening of the conversations, analysis and exploration has been heartening. More and more actions are being taken to attack the issue at all levels.

Yet, many of the issues discussed at the conference remain as relevant today as they were then. This paper is both a summary and an elaboration of those discussions. It goes beyond those discussions to incorporate new material and new ideas. As such, this is not simply a report of the conference; it is a description of the current situation. Our purpose is to synthesize, update and extend the ideas first discussed at the conference. The goal is to create guidance for future policy directions as we attempt to make the transition to the new information age.

<top>

Acknowledgements:

Athena Alliance would like to thank our co-sponsors for their help in putting on the “New IT – New Equity – New Economy” conference:

In addition, we would like to thank the conference advisory panel for their efforts:

We would also like to thank Samson International for sponsoring the conference reception.

Special acknowledgement goes to our Chairman, Richard Cohon, without whose time, efforts and generous contributions this conference would not have taken place.

This report benefited greatly from review and comments by many individuals. Chief thanks, however, goes to Mary McCue of McCue Inc. for her careful and diligent editorial and production assistance.

Finally, we would like to especially thank the participants at the conference who shared their time, ideas and energy and those individuals who have subsequently joined the conversation. Their insight and intellectual contributions made this report possible.

While this report is based on the input of many individuals, the author bears the burden of responsibility for any errors, oversight and omissions.

<top>

Introduction:

As America enters the 21st Century, we are simultaneously confronted with great opportunities and formidable challenges. We should not allow ourselves to be overwhelmed by the degree and complexity of the challenges. Nor should we be seduced by the hype often associated with the opportunities. As with other grand transformations that have shaken our nation, the transformation from an industrial to information age will test our character, unity and national will.

A fundamental change is occurring in how human beings organize work and economic activity, driven only in part by developments in information technology (IT). Information, knowledge and other “intangibles” dominate business and commerce, both as inputs to the production process and as end products in and of themselves. In this new era, social capital and intellectual capital play roles as important as financial capital in commerce and society.

As part of this transformation, those individuals and communities currently left behind are in danger of being further disadvantaged. Others who are currently just coping are at risk of being left behind. Over the past few years, concerns over this possibility have crystallized around the concept of a “digital divide.” Both the concept and the statistics to back it up are powerfully compelling. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has been collecting data on the digital divide for a number of years. Their 1999 report documents “the persistence of the digital divide between the information rich (such as Whites, Asians/Pacific Islanders, those with higher incomes, those more educated, and dual-parent households) and the information poor (such as those who are younger, those with lower incomes and education levels, certain minorities, and those in rural areas or central cities).”1

NTIA’s 2000 report documents some improvements, “groups that have traditionally been digital ‘have nots’ are now making dramatic gains.”2 But the report goes on to caution:

This concept of the information rich and the information poor has been used to analyze not only the situation within the United States, but also between the developed and developing world. As the communiqué for the G8 meeting in July 2000 states, “bridging the digital divide in and among countries has assumed a critical importance on our respective national agendas.4

The term “digital divide” has been extremely useful. The original NTIA studies, under the leadership of Larry Irving, sounded the alarm – and continue to perform an invaluable service by keeping us updated on the trends and latest statistics. But has the concept of technology haves and have-nots out-lived its usefulness? Already politicians have moved on to using terms such as “digital opportunity” and “digital inclusion.”

With this in mind, Athena Alliance hosted a conference (“New IT – New Equity – New Economy”) to explore the issues involving those left behind in the new information age. The discussion at that conference – and subsequent events – leads5 to a straightforward conclusion: it is time to broaden the debate. We must move from “divide” to “inclusion” as the central organizing principle of our analysis and actions. In other words, we must move the debate from access to the Internet – the original definition of the digital divide – to inclusion in the information economy. The issue is not simply the utilization of IT. Our task is to develop a more encompassing description of the technological, economic and social aspects of the revolution in IT and the rise of a new economy.

Broadening the debate brings a new set of challenges and policy issues. It requires an understanding of and ability to manage the interconnection between a number of currently separate policy streams, including telecommunications, technology, information, training and workforce development, education, economic development, and poverty and welfare policies.

This new debate also requires increased attention to the process and institutions of governance itself. One of our greatest challenges may be the inability of our institutions to rapidly adapt to changing circumstances. Viewed from this perspective, the issue is not one of a digital divide but an institutional lag. Overcoming that institutional lag may be the most important step we can take to enhance inclusion.

<top>

The Context

Understanding the nature and consequences of the “digital divide” requires understanding the changes occurring in our economy and society. We need to both deepen and broaden our understanding of the basic framework in which we are operating. This point is key in developing policy. As Ernest Wilson of the University of Maryland put it “are some of this issues simply transitional? Are we in a relatively short transition, in which case we don’t need to worry about the big policy issue because it will take care of itself? Or is this a 20 year slough?”

As we grapple with these issues, a large dose of both humility and caution is called for. There is an old saying that it is very difficult to make predictions, especially about the future. That admonition is also true about understanding the present, especially in times of rapid change. We live in one of those times. As a consequence, our understanding of the present, as well as our ability to see into the future, is severely constrained. Elliot Maxwell, then with the Department of Commerce, summed it up when he stated, “we are watching a wave break over our ability to understand and predict things.”6

Thus, before we confront the issues of access, governance and economic development in the digital economy, we must begin with some fundamental questions:

In all three areas, our data is sketchy and our theories incomplete. Arguments rage – mostly implicitly. The implicit answers to these fundamental questions heavily determine one’s position on issues related to access, governance and economic development. Our first task is to explicate the arguments.

How new and different is the “New Economy”?

One of the most difficult and confusing questions is the nature of the New Economy. By now, most people are willing to accept the notion that we somehow live in an economic structure that is “new.” However, the nature of that “newness” and the difference from what existed in the recent past is still a matter of contention. Too often, attention is focused on the surface – at the explosion of the Internet and the fluctuations in the fortunes of the dot-coms. As a consequence, much of the debate over the “digital divide” remains focused on access to the Internet and personal computers.

Yet, the changes to our economy are much deeper – and much older than the recent rise of the Internet.
There are those who see the New Economy as an add-on to the Old Economy. The core of economic activity remains in Old Economy industries – manufacturing, mining and agriculture. New Economy sectors of communications and media are, and will continue to be, auxiliary activities. According to this view “the digital revolution is mostly an opportunity for consumers to save money and spend it in the old economy.”7

Others also see the New Economy as a separate area, but in a different light. They see it dominating and overwhelming the Old Economy, much the same way that manufacturing dominated previously agricultural economics. In this view, information, communications, financial services and other new economy sectors will continue to grow, displacing existing manufacturing industries in terms of both total employment and proportion of America’s GDP. In many cases, manufacturing will move to developing countries in search of lower labor costs, thereby creating a new international division of labor – and a global digital divide. Developing countries will make things; developed countries will produce information and “content.”

However, the New Economy is a broader phenomena than the recent rise of the Internet and growth of the information sector. At its heart, the New Economy is an Information Economy. The transformation from an Industrial to an Information Economy has been on-going for a number of years – if not decades. Already information, knowledge and other intangibles are playing an increasingly important role in business and commerce as both inputs to the production process and as end products in and of themselves.

The changes are not simply the result of the rise of a new sector – one which has grown much larger than older sectors. There is no separate new economy sector. All parts of the economy and all sectors are affected by the shift to an Information Economy. The process of making and using things is just as affected as the production and utilization of information. Take the example of the heart of the manufacturing sector:8 machine tools. A recent study documents how machine tool companies are using information technology to lower consumer costs and to increase productivity throughout the manufacturing sector. Likewise, there are numerous stories of the use of IT to improve productivity in agriculture.9

To again quote Elliot Maxwell, “we’re seeing radical transformations in the way businesses operate; a kind of informationization of businesses. It is a breakdown in the ways that we have moved information, make use of information, and the form that information is taking.”10

The macro change is driving a series of mezzo and micro changes. The list is well known. It includes: new organizational structures; different sets of skills needed by both individuals and groups; increased levels of productivity; new business models; greater intensity of communications; changes in economic behaviors; and, different political and civic interactions.

Small- and medium-size enterprises (SMEs) are hit especially hard by these changes. While larger firms have the resources to cope with the changes, small companies often find it difficult to undertake the efforts needed to make the transition. On the other hand, smaller firms are many times quicker to respond to change.

These changes have the potential for dramatic consequences, not simply in business but in how government works and in how communities function. For example, we don’t really know the ramifications of the rise of e-commerce. There are those who worry about the demise of existing commercial and retail areas – “Main Street” (which in many cases is the local shopping mall). The debate is far greater than the economic outcome. As Richard Sclove of Loka Institute put it, “Main Street does more than keep a local economy going. Main Street is a source of social vitality and provides public spaces where people from different class and racial backgrounds do some inter-mixing, know about each other, and you develop the social basis for being able to govern a society democratically with that heterogeneity and public mixing and interchange.”11

Part of the concern is the combination of the IT and globalization. The digital economy is clearly one of increased national and internationalization. This trend of globalization, in and of itself, raises questions about the economic and social viability of some communities. As Christopher Gates of the National Civic League put it,

Yet, much of the hype about e-commerce has proven to be just that – hype. The most successful e-commerce models emerging are “clicks and mortar.”13 Retailers are finding that a physical presence is as important as ever. Main Street businesses are finding ways to use information technology to make themselves more competitive. As Robert Atkinson of the Progressive Policy Institute remarked, “we really have the wrong idea what the digital economy is; it’s not about replacing all of this stuff. Most of the transformation is going to be business to business.

Most of the productivity gain is going to be back office functions that we don’t see anyway.”14
Clearly the new Information Economy will be different from the previous Industrial Economy. We are just not sure exactly what the effect of that difference will be.

<top>

Are the new technologies fundamentally different in their impact on society?

This second question once again illustrates our lack of data and understanding. There are those who view the technology almost solely in terms of communications and entertainment. E-mail is a souped-up version of letters and telephones. The Internet is seen as an interactive replacement for television – or an expanded mail-order catalog. From this point of view, the changes in society and the economy are a continuation of the existing situation.
Others are concerned that the changes wrought by the technology are both dramatic and dangerous. As Richard Sclove stated, “in pursuing universal and affordable access, we’re framing it in a way that’s going to overshoot into an over-wired world which is going to be a world of inescapable compulsory access, not voluntary and equitable access.”15

We still know little about the effects of IT on social capital and the sense of community. Is the Internet a substitute for face-to-face interactions and the destroyer of a sense of community? Or is IT the key to revitalizing communications and to a renewed and expanded sense of community? The data is still unclear. Recently, the author of an earlier study showing negative impact of heavy Internet use has released new data showing no negative affects.16

One example of the fierce nature of the debate is in the education arena. Many extol the benefits of computers in education. As the Web-Based Education Commission – a congressionally created study group – recently stated:

Others, however, are provocatively more skeptical. The Alliance for Childhood has cautioned against the use of computers in schools for younger children:

Both sides throw theories and experts at the issue. Neither seems to have definitive data.19

A corollary to this argument over the effect of the technology concerns the degree to which the technology is truly empowering. Much has been said about the liberating nature of IT. However, both the way in which the technology is utilized and the business model in which the technology is deployed can limit that freedom. There are a number of quality of work issues. We can’t necessarily assume that peoples’ working conditions are better just because they are in front of a terminal. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that many people are suffering from poor labor conditions, poor quality of work, and invasion of privacy in the workplace.

Much has also been said about the power of the technology to level the playing field among information providers. Anyone, it is said, can be a publisher. However, with the consolidation of Internet companies, there is a concern whether smaller voices and lesser known cultural content can survive. For example, a common business model is for small start-up companies to offer unique content funded on the basis of advertising revenues.20 That model may no longer be available to non-mainstream content providers as advertisers consolidate their spending. Even before the dot-com crash, the top 15 web sites accounted for 71 percent of all banner ad revenues. As Paula Bagasao, Global Knowledge Services, Inc., put it, “the mythology about an even playing field is something to take a look at it. It may or may not be an even playing field.”21

<top>

Is the digital divide something new?

Flowing from the question of technology’s effects is one of whether the demographic differences in usage are a new phenomena or reflect existing “divides.”

The technology usage divide

Everyone agrees there are significant differences in computer technology usage patterns among socio-economic groups. However, some argue that the difference in usage is not a problem. As with any new technology, there are earlier adopters and those who lag behind. This pattern is a function of technological development. As a technology improves, its usage becomes more wide-spread. Lower cost and more user-friendly technology will result in widespread adoption. Thus, the digital divide – meaning access to a computer and the Internet – will disappear by itself.

The danger, from one point of view, is that we make public policy based on an incomplete or incorrect view of where the system is going. As Robert Atkinson argued:

Yet, there is reason to be skeptical of the argument that the problem will take care of itself. Some data shows that Internet adoption at home seems to have stalled23 while others show a continued growth in high-speed broadband connections.24 Public policies may be needed to make sure that the adoption rates for computers and the Internet continue to increase. With other technologies often cited for comparison, government actions played an important role. Widespread telephone usage is in part a result of a telecommunications policy of universal service. The ubiquitous nature of the automobile was greatly facilitated by government highway and land use policies. This interpretation argues for a more activist telecommunications policy to overcome the non-market barriers to adoption and to push development of the technology, such as a more rapid deployment of broadband technologies.

Others highlight the market-driven nature of the problem: those who are economically well-off have always been able to use the best and most advanced technology while those lower on the income scale are forced to do without. This view argues for a micro-economic policy to help the diffuse the technology, i.e. subsidies and incentives.

Even if adoption rates for advanced information technologies follow the historical pattern, numerous issues remain. As we argue throughout this report, simply having access to the technology is not enough to insure participation and inclusion. In addition, questions of conditions of access and price of usage are critical. Having a phone in one’s home is very different from having access to a corner payphone. As Anthony Wilhelm of the Benton Foundation put it, there is the issue of “have now and have later.”25 Will those who are in the category of “have later” be significantly disadvantaged?

Some don’t want to be connected. According to a survey last year by the Pew Internet and American Life Project, half the adults in America do not have Internet access and 57 percent of those non-users are not interested in getting online. Thirty-two percent of those without Internet access now say they definitely will not get Internet access. That comes to about 31 million Americans.26

The argument over rates of technology adoption highlights one of the difficulties of the discussion: what is the problem? The digital divide has been framed in terms of the technology utilization, especially existing data on PC and Internet usage. But, both the technology and the way in which the technology are used are rapidly changing. There is no reason to believe that access to the Internet of today (especially the domination of the PC as the point of access) will remain the defining characteristic of the divide in the future.

Already, broadband access is becoming a major differentiation between the information haves and have-nots. With increased wireless communications, the digital divide may soon be defined based on ownership of a cell phone.27 Others say the future of the web is based on specialized “Internet appliances.” Sony, for example, has recently announced an alliance with AOL Time Warner to put Internet access in their PlayStation2.28

We currently have a nexus of a technology at home, at school and at work: the PC. What happens to the concern over technology usage when work/school and home technologies diverge? When the dominant technology at work is a computer and at home is an Internet and home entertainment appliance, are we still worried about the differences in home usage? Is our concern computer skills or information access – or both?

<top>

The economic divide

There is another difficulty with the PC/Internet centered discussion: the “so-what” question. Why are we worried that the poor lack the ability to buy books and airline tickets on-line?

Those who see the process as a gradual adoption of a new technology are most likely to raise this question. The level of use of a technology naturally depends on socio-economic factors – especially income and education. As talked about earlier, those who are economically well-off have always been the earlier adopters of a new technology – for example the automobile, the telephone and the television. Those in lower socio-economic groups have access as costs come down and usability increases. In this view, the divide in technology usage is just another part of the overall economic divide.

This view is reinforced by a focus on the technology’s consumer-oriented use. If the technology is seen as simply the latest-and-greatest gadget, then the well-off will have it and the poor will make do with cheaper substitutes. The digital divide can then be compared to a “Mercedes divide.”29

Others see the technology divide as both cause and effect of the economic divide. Their answer to the “so-what” question focuses on the linkage between the economic and the technological. The causation runs from technology utilization to economic outcomes and back to technology utilization. Telecommunications and information technologies are not just consumer devices. They are production tools. Simply put: by utilizing the technology, the haves are able to get more; the have-nots are shut out even more. Lack of access leads to a lack of wealth and income, which was the reason for the lack of access.

Nor is it simply a divide between those who have access to the technology and those who do not. A great part of the divide is between those who benefit from the wealth created by the explosive growth of the technology and those who don’t. The new technology and the new business models are disruptive – a clear example of Schumpeter’s creative destruction. For those on the “destruction” side of the equation, life can be difficult.
Those displaced by the forces of creative destruction are not the only ones who may be left out of the economic boom. A number of workers in technology industries are not getting rich: contract workers who can’t get permanent jobs with Microsoft, back-room employees in service centers and order-fulfillment centers, low-end technical jobs where there is no chance for additional training and advancement. George Kohl from the Communications Workers of America pointed out, “people…can be excluded from the incredible wealth that’s being created.”30

The dangers of the divide

For those who see the divide as a problem, from either an economic or technological source, the concerns are the same. The existing problems of wealth gaps and community stratification may be intensifying or radically changing their appearance and nature. For every new Silicon Valley, numerous communities are left behind. And the problem is not only an increase in the already enormous disparities between these communities. There is a significant threat to currently viable, but digitally impoverished, working class and middle class communities. These communities are in danger of joining the ranks of the left-behind.

The danger of intense inequality is both economic and social. On the economic side, it is unclear whether the transformation can continue when a significant portion of the population is not participating. This raises the issue of the value of connecting everyone to the network. As has been pointed out, the value of the network increases as more participate (Metcalf’s Law). Does the existence of have-nots – those who are not connected – lessen the value of the network to the haves? As Elliot Maxwell put it, “there’s an enormous amount of shared sense of what the upside is…[but] we’ve got to be able to have people participate in this if we are to harvest the upside.”31

The social danger is as stark. As Anthony Wilhelm stated, “the greatest obstacle in any democracy, of course, is inequality, and is this technology exacerbating inequality or can it actually help close the gap between haves and haves not?”32

<top>

The Issues: Access, Governance and Economic Development

The framework discussions lead to an exploration of three facets of the issue of equity in the new world of information technology: access, governance and economic development. All three are closely linked. Governance and economic development are a deepening of the definition of access. Governance is concerned with the equitable access both to government services and information and to participation in the governance process. Economic development is access to the benefits of the information technology revolution: skills, jobs, income and wealth. Each of these two subsume the question of access by addressing the issue of access for what purpose.

Access

To begin with, we must confront the fundamental question: What does access mean?

Access is not only the physical availability. This is both an obvious and non-obvious point. Many see the issue of access as one of affordability. If the device and connection costs decrease, the problem will be alleviated. However, device and connection costs are only part of the overall problem. Training, maintenance and upgrade costs must also be considered, as well as potential costs to access specific content.

Affordability is only one of the reasons why someone might not have physical access. Too often, many of us forget about segments of the population who, for whatever reason, do not have physical access to information technologies. It may be because supporting technologies of telephone service or electricity are not available, as is the case in poor and physically isolated areas. It may also be that the technology is not usable by people with disabilities.

One participant at the conference related a case of working with a school. In order to increase the efficacy of the technology, it was felt that they had to involve the entire family. That meant bringing computers to the family and providing free Internet service. However, 28 percent of the families did not have the telephone line needed to use the free service.

Clearly, access to the communications infrastructure is a major issue – beginning with basic telephone service. As the 1999 NTIA report noted, “certain groups, such as low-income, young, and certain minority households, are still far less likely to own telephones than higher-income, older, or White or Asian/Pacific Islander households. These disparities are particularly noticeable in rural areas.”33 As the infrastructure of the information economy moves to broadband, these disparities will only get worse.

Likewise, the problems of access for people with disabilities highlight some of the fundamental issues. Through poor design, some web sites are inaccessible to people with disabilities. Yet, designs to enhance usability would benefit all users, following a long history of technologies for the disabled where the benefits accrue to the non-disabled.34

The lack of access to the technology by people with disabilities illustrates the economic argument. Designed correctly, the technology is providing employment opportunities for disabled individuals that might not have been available. Designed poorly, those opportunities are foreclosed. The same dichotomy confronts all other groups and individuals who lack access.

It is also a case study of the importance of participation in decision-making. As we will discuss later, the issue concerns who is making decisions about how information technology is developed and utilized – and what voice they are listening to. Clearly, users with disabilities were not originally part of the design and decision-making process. They have since been heard loud and clear.

Lack of a physical presence of the technology – because of an inability to either afford the technology, the physical inability to use the technology or the lack of infrastructure – is a visible barrier to access. The greatest invisible barrier is the functional inability to use the technology, starting with the problems facing the functionally illiterate population. In this case, no magical solution to the problem of physical access can make up for the lack of an adequate education or training.

But the barriers to access extend beyond the issue of basic literacy. Illiteracy comes in many different varieties. It goes beyond the ability to read and write to a basic understanding of the use of computers. And it goes even further. In this information-rich age, it involves not just being able to handle the data, but being able to interpret the data.

Beyond the issue of physical access to the technology is the question of access to what and for what. “To what” means what content is available. “For what” means the purposes of that access. As Harmeet Sawhney from Indiana University pointed out, access to communications resources and access to information resources are two very different things.35 Access to information resources is highly individual and must be tailored to the specific need. Access to communications resources is a community issue because the purpose is to interact with others. Often the two are combined on the same technology platform. But the purposes and uses of the technology should be split out in the analysis.

With respect to content, the question is one of determining both what content is needed and ways of providing that content. Only the individual and the community can answer the question of “to what.” There is no one-size-fits-all solution. In helping communities deal with the issue of access, it therefore becomes critical to first do a needs assessment to understand what the community wants in terms of content. Unfortunately, all too often, programs take their cues from what outsiders (including funders) think is necessary, not from the community directly. If the goal is to empower the community through access at multiple levels, then an assessment of needs – and of local skills, strengths and information assets – is needed first.

Multiple access points for community dialogues are needed so that commercial sites are not the only ones. Consolidation of the industry, such as the AOL – Time Warner merger, only heightens concerns that the Internet medium will be effectively shut to non-commercial sources. Community access centers can be a means of helping people develop their own community content. However, the information on commercial sites is perceived as better than non-profits. Volunteer-based organizations generally do not have the resources to create, update and maintain high quality information sites. A key issue is the sustainability of efforts to provide access. Where are the resources to continue the community-based information development and to sustain the multiple access points?

The purpose – the “for what” question – is access to a mechanism that provides a means of efficacy. The result of access should be to improve peoples’ lives – either directly or through capacity building for both individuals and communities. The technology must be both structured and used in such a way that it makes a difference – and does not lead down the blind path of doing nothing under the guise of doing something.

The ongoing discussion about computers and Internet in schools as referenced earlier is a perfect example. Simply creating access to computers could be a poor substitute for effective teaching. The issue is how to best use the technology. June Holley of the Appalachian Center for Economic Networks (ACEnet), illustrated some of these more fundamental barriers:

The same issues hold for all other uses of the technology.

Access, therefore, must be defined on many levels and in many different ways. Some of the conference participants offered a 6-C typology on basic questions of access. Computers/appliances must be available. Conductivity, Content and Competency (the ability to understand how to use everything together) are key. Community includes its assets and how to pay for it. And Compiler means affordable software and operating systems specific for community use.

Access to technology means not only its physical presence but also the skills and knowledge to use it. It includes the motivation to use the technology, which stems from an understanding of and desire to reap benefits from its use. Access also means access to information and communications resources and access for the purpose of making a difference in peoples’ lives.

Two answers to questions of “to what” and “for what” are issues of governance and economic development.

<top>

Governance

Governance is part and parcel of the issue of access. In essence, the question of governance comes down to two points:

Service delivery

The ability to access government services is a fundamental right of the citizenry. There is a great amount of talk about e-government at the Federal, state and local levels. Information and communications technology can be a facilitator of government services. Just as in the private sector, the delivery of many services can be faster, more reliable and more efficient using the new technologies.

Yet, poor systems designs can make the technology unusable. In the case of governments, the consequences of a poor system design can be quite high. If you don’t like the on-line service offered by your bank, you can always switch banks. But if your city’s on-line vehicle registration system is difficult to use, you have very few choices – especially if the number of clerks at the Motor Vehicles office has been reduced in anticipation of the savings due to automation.

In addition, many governments are turning to private and private/public entities to deliver many services. Some conference participants contended that the information revolution will accelerate this outsourcing of services, without thoroughly examining issues of accountability and liability.

Governments are in a very different situation from the private sector. Business is using the new technology to increase productivity and efficiency. The universal availability of the services is not a high priority goal – as long as a high percentage of the targeted market has access. For governments, however, effectiveness and universal availability is a requirement. Multiple access mechanisms are a must, even at the expense of efficiency. The saving from e-government may not, therefore, match the expected savings based on comparisons with the private sector. And if cost efficiency is the over-riding goal, effectiveness of service delivery may suffer. As any local politician knows, that is a recipe for a short career.

But the promise of e-government is not just increased efficiency. As Robert Atkinson has pointed out, “digital government both enables and requires rethinking how government is organized from the perspective of the citizen and the functions government performs.”37

Both increased effectiveness in the delivery of government services and improved participation in the process can and should be our end goals.

Information

Access to information is also a fundamental right. In the United States, we have understood this point since the founding of our nation. Transparency of government actions and of government information is a key factor in building trust and legitimacy. Technologies that can be used to increase that transparency will foster participation.
Governments are increasingly making information available electronically. If we’re concerned about equity issues with respect to access, then we should be concerned about some populations not having access to the technology that allows access to government information.

However, the issue goes beyond the technology to issues of policy. What information governments make available is as important as how they make it available electronically. Not all governments are as forthcoming with information as others. Even those governments who pride themselves on openness, such as the United States, are not always so open. Policies governing both the release of information and the ease of access must promote an ethic of openness.

<top>

Participation

Access to information is the prerequisite for effective participation. The question of participation has two components. The first is the issue of who is and is not in the discussion as the technology is developed and deployed. As the example of people with disabilities points out, if your voice is not heard in the design process, usability cannot be assumed. People develop technology. As a society or as a community, we can have some influence over how that technology is developed. Our goal should be the design and deployment of technology in a manner that is useable for all communities and individuals.

The second concern is over the use of the technology in the larger process of civic engagement. This is an issue of finding ways to increase both participation and accountability. The technology has a tremendous capacity to make our political processes work better and help us build better communities. Yet, it is not clear that the way we have conceived of and utilized information technology is living up to that potential. Christopher Gates succinctly summed up the situation:

Economic development

In essence, the focus of economic development is access to the monetary benefits of information technology. Yet, we do not really understand the relationship between advanced information technology and economic development.

Three key areas stand out:

Workforce development

One of the cornerstones of economic development in the information economy is workforce development. Every community is concerned with how to improve the quality of its workforce. Education is, and must be, the starting point. The concern is that the school system is not preparing students for the jobs of the future. As one participant at the conference stated, “what we used to get in K-12 is not necessarily what we need to compete in today’s market place.”39

It was recognized during the conference discussions that the school system has failed in many communities, especially in poorer areas. This problem is fundamentally not a technology problem but a political and social one. If not successfully addressed, the failure of the education system will make any attempt at inclusion in the information economy by these communities virtually impossible.

It is not just a question of education. Most of the workforce of tomorrow is already working today. While we tend to focus on new entrants to the workforce, we must also devote attention to incumbent workers and issues of life-long learning and adult training. Information technology plays an important role as both the object of, and the mechanism for delivering, training. But, ultimately, this is not about technology; it is about people. How do you develop and nurture current workers in an era where traditional ladders for career advancement have disappeared? How can experienced and mature workers keep up with what’s going on? These people questions may be the most difficult to answer.

Part of the question of workforce development is the issue of literacy. People who are marginally literate are not going to be able to participate in the New Economy. The old strategy of using technology to substitute for human skills – “dumbing down” – will no longer work in a global economy. As was pointed out a decade ago, the choice is one of low wages or high skills – and the foundation for high skills is literacy.40

Literacy comes in many different varieties. It goes beyond the use of computers. In this information-rich age, it involves not just being able to handle data, but also interpreting data. Literacy includes basic skills (reading, writing and arithmetic); computer skills; visual skills; technical skills; mathematics and logic skills; cross-language and cross-cultural skills. For example, the National Skills Standards Board has identified using information and communications technology as but one of many skills needed. Other employability knowledge and skills include: listening; speaking; gathering and analyzing information; analyzing and solving problems; making decisions and judgments; organizing and planning; using social skills; adaptability; working in teams; leading others; building consensus; and self and career development.41 All forms of literacy must be addressed in our workforce development activities.

<top>

Economic development strategies

It is generally understood that IT is a key to local economic development. Yet, the rise of the Information Economy throws into question current economic development strategies. At the most basic level is the relationship between taxation and e-commerce. In many parts of the country, the tax base drives the nature of economic development. Some communities are almost entirely dependent on sales taxes. If large numbers of the companies go to e-commerce, what does that do to the local tax base?

Conversely, many communities use tax breaks, especially on property taxes, to recruit companies to their area. But property taxes may not be as important a factor for many of the new virtual companies as they were for traditional manufacturing companies. In addition, tax breaks, on both property taxes and corporate income taxes, are less effective incentives for start-up companies who may not have taxable incomes for some time. The shift in taxation as a result of the information economy has strong implications for local communities that are often ignored in the debate about the ideology of taxation on the Internet.

On a more fundamental level, the Information Economy is about more than just high skill and high wage jobs. It is about new opportunities for ownership, business creation and wealth creation. As Keith Roberts-Sampson, Samson International, put it, “it’s about being able to develop the next group of techni-preneurs.”42

Entrepreneurship and business creation must be key features of economic development. As a recent report by the National Commission on Entrepreneurship argues:

Information technology is an important part of both the entrepreneurship process and the process of business expansion. IT is not just a consumer tool. In the Information Economy, it is a production tool.

Thus, it is still necessary for communities to consider their telecommunications infrastructure, especially broadband. But there are some conventional infrastructure needs that are important as well. E-commerce isn’t just a question of pressing buttons. It requires a huge infrastructure of warehousing and delivery along with a transportation system of airports, railroads and highways.

Beyond questions of infrastructure, there are important quality of life issues. Good schools are important not only to educate the next generation of workers, but also to lure their parents into the area. Highway congestion, pollution, lack of housing can all dampen an area’s potential attractiveness. All of these quality of life issues not only affect an area’s ability to recruit companies and entrepreneurs. They also affect an area’s ability to retain their homegrown companies and entrepreneurs.

Unfortunately, many IT-centered strategies are simply based on recreating Silicon Valley. This is not necessarily an effective strategy for most of the country. The key to a successful strategy is setting the right conditions so that existing businesses and existing entrepreneurs can become more competitive using IT. Yet, the goal of entrepreneurship and helping “homegrown” companies appear to receive little attention and funding by economic development agencies.

This is not simply a case of necessarily creating advanced technology companies and workers. The goal is to help companies, especially SMEs, use the technology systems. By using IT, small businesses can increase their market presence and improve their internal operations. As June Holley of ACEnet pointed out, “where there is any kind of (economic) capacity in the community, there are ways you can amplify what is going on by the use of information technology.”44 The danger is that many smaller businesses could get locked out of such arrangements, and thereby be locked out of a large portion of the marketplace.

There are some examples of “doing it right.” June Holley explained their program:

Ms. Holley went on to explain the importance of network catalysts in low-income communities:

The importance of the networked nature of the information economy cannot be overstated. There is the potential for IT to pull people away from their local networks. At the same time, IT creates a whole new set of connections, which are not necessarily place-based. This raises serious questions about conventional approaches to economic development.

Key is the development of local and individual assets. In the information economy, information and knowledge assets are a major source of competitive advantage. Identifying and building upon local information assets – and connecting those assets to the global market – is an important new strategy in this emerging networked economy.47

Financing is another concern. For example, Ms. Holley spoke of ACEnet’s efforts to create their own internal venture capital fund. With the past emphasis on funding of high-tech and dot-com companies, there is a danger of drawing back from the financing needed to help companies and individuals make the transformation. Especially at risk are locally and regionally based SMEs.

New innovative financial mechanisms are needed for an era where “intangible” assets are the most important. We especially need efforts to reach out to those areas left behind. One good example is the pioneering efforts of the Corporation for Enterprise Development with Individual Development Accounts and micro-loans. The New Markets Initiative in the FY2001 budget deal is another case in point. These provisions provide for, among other things, expanded empowerment zones, new tax credits for investments in low income communities and ways of spurring capital formation for these investments.

Using IT in the economic development process

Information technology can also be a powerful tool in facilitating the economic development process. Economic development agencies are beginning to use advanced information technologies, such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in their work. But few have harnessed the communications and organizing aspects of the technology to improve practices through use on knowledge management techniques.48

IT can be used in conjunction with, and to augment, old fashioned methods of information sharing at local level. Ms.Holley gave the example of setting up a “discussion” tent at the local festival/market for folks to talk about local economic development; the conversation will later be moved on to a list-serve. We must find ways to use the technology to support these types of low-tech, grassroots activities. In some cases, the technology may not be adequate to facilitate local conversations. Technology must be used as a tool in the economic development process, not allowed to dominate or distort the process.

<top>

A New Debate and New Challenges

The profound changes brought about in part by the IT revolution are ushering in a new era where information and knowledge play a central role in human activities. As a result, we face new challenges regarding the organization and utilization of information and knowledge.

We cannot continue to discuss these issues in the narrow confines of telecommunications policy. The central issue is not simply access – being able to surf the web or send and receive e-mail. Rather, it is inclusion of all in a society increasingly defined and structured by information flows. A broader discussion of inclusion must replace the narrower discussion of the “digital divide.”

Complexity of the issue

A broader discussion of inclusion must grapple with a complex set of related issues. At the Athena Alliance conference, participants spent much of their time and effort struggling with seemingly endless interconnections among topics: telecommunications policy, economic development, training and worker development, education and information policy.

While all of these areas are affected by the IT revolution, policy has tended to focus on technology access and telecommunications policy. But answers to challenges posed by inclusion goes well beyond technology. They include training and workforce development policy, education policy, economic development, housing and community development, human services, trade policy and information policy. We must find ways to coordinate and connect our activities in the various areas. Without coordination, efforts in separate areas will ultimately fail.

We must also look to creating new tools for economic development and microeconomic policy. In part, that means re-thinking our approach some to policy questions. For example, we currently treat privacy, computer security, intellectual property rights, freedom of information, “right-to-know” policies and free speech issues as separate policy areas. Yet, they are all part of managing the information commons: what information is and should be private, what information is and should be proprietary and what information is and should be public. A more comprehensive approach is needed.

Institutional lag

A more troubling aspect of the broader set of challenges is the issue of our ability to find solutions. The single most pressing problem may be the institutional capacity to deal with these issues. As Todd LaPorte of George Mason University put it, “the speed of change fundamentally challenges democratic processes. To the extent that institutions exist to protect and promote the public interest, they depend on long-term commitments by governments and by people who trust those institutions…I am deeply pessimistic about the possibilities in the short term of institutions’ [ability] to grapple with these kinds of changes.”49

Institutions to which we would normally turn for help with these issues are not keeping up. In the area of education and training, for example, there is a great deal of talk about private sector programs, such as the Cisco Academy. These programs illustrate the problem. The reason Cisco is training people is not because Cisco wants to be in the training business. It is because existing educational institutions are not giving them what they need in the way of trained workers.

As one conference participant remarked, the sort of issues being discussed at the conference were discussed in board rooms four years ago and we’re only just beginning to catch up. In the meantime, the private sector has moved on. The private sector is moving very fast; public institutions lag in their ability to gather information and take action.

The institutional lag is especially troublesome when it comes to those institutions of governance and those institutions on which individuals rely. As Todd LaPorte put it, “public organizations are different from private organizations in their ability to move quickly – in fact we don’t like public organizations to move too quickly.”50

Role of government and public policy

These concerns raise the issue of the changing roles of government and the marketplace:

Compounding the challenges facing public policy is the fact that these changes are not occurring in a vacuum. In particular, the last few decades have seen a continuing struggle over the nature of federalism. The so-called “devolution revolution” has radically altered the relationships between Federal, state and local governments, as well as their relationships with both private and private-public entities. At the same time, there is a shift of responsibility onto individuals and away from institutions, as part of efforts toward individual empowerment.

These trends take on special important in a time of economic churn, such as we are facing today. There is a growing concern that public and quasi-public institutions – labor market institutions, education – are not giving people the support structure they need to cope with the churn.

Clearly, relying solely on the marketplace is not an answer. Nor is reliance on government and governmental bureaucracies. As Elliot Maxwell put it, “there are many ways to engage the problem. Not all of them are governmental; many of them involve governmental resources. Most of them involve cooperative activities between the public and private sector.”51

As we go forward, we should view the policy-making process as monitoring, adjusting and shaping – not fixing the problems once and for all. A four-legged stool approach is called for: the public sector, the private sector, NGOs and labor unions coming together and participating in policymaking around access, governance and economic development.

One of the critical issues is the fact that we no longer operate in a rigid bureaucratic system but in a networked economy. Consequently, the one key is finding the players to make the things happen – what one conference participant called “strategic convening.”52

June Holley pointed out the need to have people with grass roots experience in the discussions:

The role of the government as a facilitator is important. In that role, one activity is to identify key issues and create and fund experiments and innovations. A pool of funds could be created specifically to bring groups together to facilitate learning – to create a situation where there are, as one conference participant put it, “little learning groups popping up all over the place.”54

It is clear that access to resources remains an important public-sector function. In a period of rapid change, those with the resources (mostly private sector) are disproportionately able to participate. As George Kohl put it:

Ultimately, it is a question of the public good and functioning as a fair and equitable society. As Elliot Maxwell stressed, it comes down to nourishing our values:

<top>

Points of Consideration

The question of the role of public policy leads directly to policy recommendations. Both during the conference and over the course of the subsequent year and a half, a number of recommendations and suggested action items have emerged. I would like to highlight eight points that we should keep in mind as we move forward in developing and implementing policy actions. Each of these points contains a number of both general and specific recommendations. Obviously, this is not an exhaustive list of recommendations or a detailed analysis of each item. It is, rather, a series of points of consideration which may be of use in guiding our future activities.

Point one: Focus on the transformation, not the technology.

At its heart, the issue of the “digital divide” is not simply a question of technological deployment. The broader issue concerns the transformation to what, for lack of a better term, we call the Information Age. The end purpose is not to narrow some gap, but to ensure that everyone has access to the expanded opportunities. Our framework should be one of inclusion for all in the broader activities that make up society and the economy. Our goal should be to facilitate the transformation to help everyone participate in civic and economic activities, however those activities are carried out in this new information age.

Point two: Review and coordinate efforts.

The problem has aspects of telecommunications policy, such as infrastructure and standards, and elements of technology policy, such as research and development and technology deployment. It also draws from information policy in the areas of content. But it also has aspects of policies on training and workforce development, education, economic development, housing and community development, human services and trade.

Reaching our goal requires a coordinated approach – in the private, public and non-governmental sectors – that combines the various elements of providing opportunity and inclusion in the information age.

In terms of governmental policy, this means that the focus of digital opportunity efforts should be the White House, not any one department or agency. Since the issue spans agency boundaries, the point for coordination of efforts must be the National Economic Council (or whatever structure the President chooses to coordinate policy at the White House). The bully pulpit of the Presidency should be used to highlight local community initiatives and promote government and private sector programs.

It is also time to take a new look at some policy areas. For example, a comprehensive approach is needed toward all parts of managing the information commons: privacy, intellectual property rights, “right-to-know” policies and other related areas.

Point three: Work to ensure that everyone has access to the technological infrastructure.

As discussed throughout this report, barriers to access to the infrastructure are many. Ways of overcoming those barriers are also varied, including public access facilities that can combine access with training and other activities, as well as home access.

With respect to access in the home, we must return to the question of universal access. The concept of universal access is built on the notion of a necessary public utility that requires government action to ensure that it is available to all. As the convergence of telecommunications and media takes place, is IT and the Internet more or less a public utility? And if so, what is the role for the government in guaranteeing universal access? We need to re-look at the concept of universal access in light of the coming convergence.

The development of broadband capabilities around the country is rapidly becoming a predicate for access – both at home and at work. Some worry about an over-built broadband system.57 Tell that to the millions of people in rural America and the inner cities who don’t have access to broadband – and to those who struggle to get POTS (plain old telephone service).

Since the conference, a number of competing proposals have come forward to facilitate the development of broadband. It is beyond the scope of this report to examine those proposals. However, as part of our discussion of universal service, we should examine our goals for broadband deployment. For example, Canada has committed to having broadband reach every community by 2004. The goal is to utilize the technology for on-line education and health care, especially in rural areas – and to help Canadian small- and medium-size businesses compete.58 Whether or not the Canadian model is applicable here is an open question. It is, however, a question that should be discussed.

It is important to recognize that there is no single model for the places where the public may gain access to the new IT infrastructure. Both home use and public access points are important. Multiple access public points are needed, such as existing public facilities, training centers, libraries, and after-school centers. For such public access sites, maintenance and on-going operational support is a must. This includes mundane issues, such as security, janitorial support, utilities as well as the more IT specific, such as network administrators and other technical support personnel. We need to bolster and expand programs, such as those at the Commerce and Education Departments, which support these activities.

Beyond support for on-going operations, there is the issue of funding for organizational development. There are many community efforts throughout the country to promote access, all of which struggle with organizational problems. Sustainability is the key. A grant here and there from the government and foundations is not enough.

The bottom line is not just access to information technology, but the utilization of that technology by organizations and individuals to better peoples’ lives. We must work to weave information technology into the operations of community groups in a way that will both help individuals use the technology and will make those groups more efficient and effective in their core mission.

Some of the barriers to digital inclusion are physical: the usability of the technology. This is not, as commonly thought of, an issue only for those with disabilities. The problems of usability and human-machine interfaces affect all of us. Surveys show that one major reason people do not use computers and the Internet is that it is too difficult. Research on ways to increase access for those with disabilities will pay off in increased usability for all. Recent Federal rules require that government web sites be accessible to the disabled. We need to build upon these efforts to make usability and accessibility part of all web sites, and a regular part of a good web-design training program.

Point four: Encourage and facilitate participation and involvement by all in the digital economy and information society.

Participation and involvement begins with the usability of the technology. Technology must meet people’s needs – not define those needs. Information technology can help people in their day-to-day lives if it is designed and structured in such a way that it helps answer their questions and solve their problems. Otherwise it becomes a barrier and a source of frustration. This is the danger of what some refer to as the “over-wired” world.
It is important to understand that individuals have different needs. A one-size-fits-all may help some – and increase their participation and involvement – but will block others. By focusing on “demand-pull,” rather than “technology-push,” we can better tailor the technology to meet individual needs.

Development of meaningful content is one of the ways to increase the level of participation. Involvement will increase as compelling content is available. For example, information on health care is a major draw for many. Increased educational content and help for parents and teachers in using that content is another way of promoting utilization. The other way to increase participation is through support for the development of locally-based content. Not only does locally-based content give individuals a reason to participate, the process of creating community-relevant content itself stimulates involvement. Some foundations have stepped up to this task. But more can and should be done by both the public and the private sectors.

In the area of e-government and political participation, the question of involvement and access takes on a special significance. We need to make sure that e-government is available to all. If a government (Federal, state or local) is going to deliver services or make information available through electronic means, then it is incumbent that the government promote access for the purpose of allowing these services to be widely delivered to everybody in the community. No services or information should be removed or dramatically cut back from traditional means of dissemination in favor of electronic dissemination until and unless all members of the community have access to that electronic means as easily as they have to the traditional means.

Point five: Focus economic development on the Information Economy, not the Internet Economy.

The information age will require a new approach to economic development. It is not about replicating Silicon Valley. It is about helping existing businesses and existing (and potential) entrepreneurs become more competitive by using technology. Key to the process is using and developing assets: financial, social, skill-based, and information assets. We must focus on building the local economy’s vitality and ability to compete in the age of globalization and help people make the switch to the new economy. One of our first tasks should be the development of processes for identifying and assessing local assets.

Revitalized programs for training the existing workforce should also be a top priority. Training programs should not be only for those who are laid off or are looking for a job. The new information age requires constant updating of skills. On-the-job training and incumbent worker training must be a large part of our workforce development activities. We must also expand our focus on all the various levels and forms of literacy and basic skills, including critical thinking skills.

We need special emphasis on how SMEs are making use of information technologies. It’s relatively easier for large firms, compared to small businesses, to incorporate new technologies into their operations. One idea that surfaced at the conference was to support mechanisms for collaborative learning amongst companies looking at the comprehensive use of information technology in small business.

We also need to foster entrepreneurship at all levels. New technology-creating (“high-tech”) businesses are important – but so are new businesses that use the technology. New entrepreneurial opportunities arise from the economic assets and the market demands of an area. Those may be high-tech based or not. The important point is not to replicate someone else’s strategy, but to grow the economy from the local assets, whatever they may be.

New innovative financial mechanisms are needed, both for dealing with “intangible” assets and to reach out to those communities left behind. Individual Development Accounts, micro-loans, and the New Markets Initiative in the FY2001 budget deal are cases in point. The New Markets Initiative is an example of a true bipartisan effort, which the Bush Administration and Congress would do well to emulate and build upon.

Collaborative learning and sharing of information is also important in the larger process of economic development.There are a number of examples of information assets being applied within businesses and local economies: the example given at the conference of ACEnet is a case in point. Economic development is an information-intensive activity. We need to utilize new knowledge management techniques and old-fashioned communications techniques to collect, disseminate and better utilize that information.

Point six: We need a better understanding of what is going on.

One of the frustrations many people felt during the conference was based on their inability to describe what was happening in the economy. Since the date of the conference, the debate about the “old” and “new” economy has only sharpened. The concern is especially heightened in local economies. As one conference participant put it, “we’ve been gathering the same old data about the state of local economies in the same old way for 30 to 40 years and we haven’t caught up with the real trends and the underlying issues in local economies.”59 We need to re-look at the data needed for economic development in the information economy.

The problem of data extends beyond the scope of local economic data. We need both better data and expanded analysis of the socioeconomic aspects of the information technology. To quote the National Academy of Sciences:

We need to make those investments.

Expanding social science research is not enough. That research must be translated into policy relevant terms. In a cost-cutting effort in the 1990s, Congress eliminated the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). This may turn out to be an example of false economy. OTA was widely praised as an authoritative and nonpartisan source of information on a variety of technology-related issues. Congress should seriously consider re-establishing this agency.

Point seven: The decision making process must be open.

True inclusion and opportunity can only occur in if the process of decision making is open and transparent. Information technology has a tremendous potential for opening and maintaining channels for general input and advocacy. However, decisions made about the technology can have the effect of closing off the process rather than opening it up. We must insure that all parties are at the table when decisions, including issues such as standard setting, are made. As noted earlier, having people with grass roots experience in on the discussions would greatly enrich the process. Everyone – the innovators and social entrepreneurs as well as “everyday people” – should be included.

The decision-making process will also affect the future development and utilization of information technology. Issues of trust, such as privacy and security, are key factors in that development. An open and transparent decision-making process will help foster trust and thereby foster technology utilization. A closed process will retard future development.

The need for an open process extends beyond the actions of the government. In America, we value and respect the rights of private citizens (individual and corporate) to conduct their business in private. However, the freedoms which are associated with the marketplace also need to be accompanied by responsibility. Issues of corporate responsibility are moving higher up on the agenda in connection with the issue of globalization. Some conference participants suggested that we need to start a national dialogue about corporate responsibility in the information age.

Point eight: Innovate and experiment.

We are in a time of transformation and change. The speed of that change and the pace of economic activity will vary. Yet the change is real and will continue.

In such a time, we must often invent new ways of coping with our problems and new policies for guiding our economy and society. This does not mean that we should throw out the old models and values. On the contrary, we should build upon what we cherish and what has worked in the past. But we cannot be bound by the constraints of “that is the way we always did it.”