Framework – discussion and conclusion

The current study focussed on developing a framework to adapt the analysis structure of the state-of-the-art TIS frameworks to include a more nuanced analysis perspective on the dynamics of marginalised communities (thus developing an IIS analysis framework). The framework that was developed takes into account that structures and functions of IISs have a different focus from that of conventional ISs. An IIS differs from other ISs in its purpose, which is to induce I4ID. By definition, a well-functioning IIS contributes to the well-being of the marginalised. By contrast, other conventional ‘well-functioning’ ISs could contribute to growth that cause deeper poverty and greater inequality.

The study adapted the structures of a leading IS analysis framework in order for it to account for the factors of each structure hindering the formation of I4ID, as well as the new orientation required to induce I4ID. The functions of the IS framework were reorientated to allow for the identification and inclusion of I4ID system dynamics towards the identification of systemic weaknesses and systemic problems hindering the formation of I4ID, as well as aligning systemic policy goals and interventions with systemic weaknesses and problems. The study found that both the structural and functional analyses are promising analytical methods to assess the inclusive dynamics of a system. The study further found that the two analyses (structural and functional), could be complementary for the analysis of IISs. The functional analysis complements the structural analysis, as the function of the IIS is the manifestation of structures that make up the IIS. The link between functions and structures of the IIS is important. Beyond the clear analytical purposes, it serves as an important guide for practical reasons as well. The functions of the IIS may only be influenced by policies through modifications of structural components (Bergek et al., 2008) (see Chapter 7). A clear example of this is the market formation function of MomConnect, where there is a need for the participation of actors to I4ID, incentives for I4ID and legislation and policies supporting not only mHealth, but also inclusive mHealth. However, this may only be realised when structural components are stimulated through systemic interventions.

The study further indicated how outlining the systemic problems of functions guide the design of systemic policy instruments, which address systemic problems in a cohesive manner. Systemic problems are defined by their structural characteristic and is directly connected and influences the functional pattern of the IIS. Systemic problems that are identified through the application of the coupled structural–functional analysis, mutually

152

express structural problems and the effect of structural problems on the I4ID processes. For example, in the MomConnect case, some knowledge development systemic problems were:

 M&E activities that are insufficient to determine reach and outcomes;  limited knowledge based on past I4ID activities;

 formal organisation lacking capacity to research the marginalised market sufficiently;  the marginalised remaining largely delinked from any research collaborative activities; and

 limited research collaboration among research institutes and NGOs due to tenders for the same donor funding.

These systemic problems are due to a lack of the presence of actors, such as a lack of marginalised involvement to foster in-depth I4ID knowledge as well as actor capability, where formal research institutes are required to develop additional capabilities and capacities to collaborate with one another, while the marginalised are required to establish deep-rooted I4ID knowledge. Another structural problem related to knowledge development is a weak network among the formal and informal market, clear in the MomConnect programme. The results of these systemic problems are manifested negatively in the functional patterns of the MomConnect programme and the larger mHealth sector.

This indicates that the mechanisms hindering IIS functions may easily be stated in terms of categories of the structural components as well as the types (presence, capacity) of systemic problems. The advantage of defining a ‘checklist’ that guides the identification of systemic problems of an IIS is that it provides a guide for the researcher to align specific policy aims and specific systemic policy instruments to strengthen I4ID system dynamics. To conclude with our illustrative example of knowledge development, the following systemic policy aims were appropriate:

 develop indicators for I4ID M&E;

 establish spaces and methods for actor capability development;  prevent too weak/stringent institutions; and

 motivate interaction opportunities between diverse actors.

Specific systemic policy instruments, supportive to reach the systemic policy aims were as follows:  measurements and indicators;

 gaining and developing a deep understanding of the targeted individuals (the market);  creating traditional spaces and places enabling the involvement of a diverse set of actors;  development of research institutes and their capabilities to study the dynamics of I4ID and IIS;  R&D grants for research institutes to develop inclusive interventions;

 deep-rooted local knowledge (bottom-up knowledge), especially appropriate delivery mediums; and  inclusivity readiness and localised implementation of inclusive solutions.

By discouraging undesirable circumstances for I4ID (systemic policy instruments) and replacing it with positive ones as well as increasing the capacities thereof, may not only improve the environment for I4ID, but

153

may also influence the direction of an IS to transform into an IIS, achieving more I4ID objectives. The proposed IIS framework may therefore be used as an analytical tool towards enhanced inclusiveness due to the open and data-rich character of the framework, where the systemic approach is sufficiently comprehensive to incorporate a wide and diverse set of identified barriers (systemic problems and weaknesses), and the functional indicators are satisfactorily targeted to identify systemic weaknesses that are context-specific and tangible. Showing how different issues interrelate and share similar causes is valuable as it allows for the formulation of recommendations that deal not with individual problems but with their shared underlying causes. The interventions that follow from these recommendations therefore do not aim to solve individual problems, but aim to strengthen the problem-solving or innovation capacities of the system analysts.

Section 8.3 concludes the thesis in the context of the research objectives.