-- Day 12 of 12- BPO Discussions, Wrapping Up --

After extremely interesting discussions yesterday, where I summarized once or twice during the day, we would like to bring the BPO discussion to a close. It was very interesting to see that many of you were concerned that the media is portraying Kenya negatively and this could (or maybe was) affecting some of the decisions of potential investors. Some in the media fraternity responded that they really must report what is there and that their priority is Kenyans not foreigners first. As one said “…bottomline- the media can’t just be improvised to promote the interests of the business and capitalist class. There are the rest of us citizens whose welfare, life and worries too must be reported”.

Thank you to all of you who have actively participated both online and offline (directly to the moderators sometimes) during the last 12 days. To recap, we have covered the following themes:

1. The policy, legal and institutional frameworks for BPO sector
2. Subsidies accorded to BPO sector
3. Human Capacity Issues
4.  Youth and Gender Issues
5. Strengths, Challenges and niches for Kenya as a BPO destination

As we wrap up today I believe we could have done more justice to the institutional framework issue. More specifically I draw from the conclusion of the institutional framework summary and the question:

In conclusion for Kenya, it can be observed that there is an overlap between KenInvest and the Kenya ICT Board when it comes to promotion of Kenya as an investment destination to potential investors. There could be other overlaps as well. For example, both KICTB and MoHEST are planning for technology/BPO parks. This is likely to lead to duplication of effort, differences in the messages communicated to stakeholders and confusion on the part of investors with respect to whom to deal with, amongst other problems. In addition, there is need to coordinate between ICT Board, KenInvest, EPC and MoEST. The big question is: Who will perform the coordination? Finally, the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Directorate in the Ministry of Planning has never been devolved into the ministries and public enterprises. Whether it is a consequence of this lack of devolution or not, the M&E capacity of the Ministry of Information and Communications, Kenya ICT Board and all the other institutions highlighted earlier is weak. At the same time, the institutional framework for Vision 2030 is in the formation stages and, even if it were to develop strong M&E capabilities, it may not be able to marshal enough power to ensure corrective action is taken by the concerned institutions in a timely manner.

This draws me to the discussion question: What needs to be done to improve/strengthen the institutional framework in order for the BPO and outsourcing sector to play its planned role in the Kenyan economy?

Let us discuss this today and any other gnawing issues in all the thematic areas as we wrap up.

Best,

Nyaki