I have received many direct emails and I thought I might want to respond to one publicly and BCC the gentleman who raised the issues. Thank you for your email. I welcome further questions and suggestions.

My answers are in below the questions

1. Scope of the project-Is it meant to cover software alone or how does it integrate other pertinent aspects of ITES & BPO
A. yes. for now certification covers software development both for individuals and for organizations developing software. without pre-empting the procurement process, this standards may take the form of certification for process methodology. This basically means that once you have certified the method by which the firm or individual writes his code, you can vouch for the standards of the underlying code. One of the challenges many projects have locally (an indeed internationally), is that the software designers dont document what they are doing and you are left at their mercy once they have finished, another challenge is most projects dont allow for testing the code or the software that is written. Others because the same person who wrote the code has the responsibility to provide final test results for it. Indeed software development, document and testing is often outsourced and provides an interesting outsourcing opportunity. There is another project on the establishment of a BPO centre of excellence centre which is under way.

2. Character of the project- Does the board intend to entirely transfer the certification mandate to a private enterprise. Why not remain at the centre to guide and oversee progress with intermitent consultancy support?
B. The thinking is still open on this. Candidates for this consultancy may well be educational institutions who can collaborate with local institutions for a long term capacity transfer. In the case of South Africa, this is housed at the University of Witwatersrand in a semi-autonomous arrangement known as the Joburg Centre for Software Engineering. http://www.jcse.org.za/. This particular one is a 3 way partnership between academia, business and government and has a much more enriched mandate than we are envisioning initially.

3. Duration- 2 years are grossly insufficient for all the tasks envisioned. Certification can only work successfully along a continous time plan. Some assumptions cited within the terms list are meant for fun. eg the testing targets for 200/500 developers. Supposing no one turns out for those tests where will liability rest? Or are we assuming that people are extremely looking forward to those tests?
A. This is true. The project just gets us started with the funding available. We forsee developing a more long term project as indicated in 2. These have to be multi-year commitments.

4. Degree of stakeholder participation- Certifications are life and death issues because they determine whether you qualify for the pay roll or not. Such matters can not be left to private investors.
A. As indicated in 2 above, a partnership model would take care of this. I certainly share the view, However well regulated private investors can mitigate these risks were we to take a private sector only route.

5. Integration of existing efforts- This project may not necessarily have to start from scratch. There are multiple instances of related efforts which just require some little fine tuning.
A. I am happy to convene a stakeholder discussion on this issue, (and all the wider issues generally). We shall seek your assistance. The consultants terms of reference will however include establishing the state of play in the market. We can augment this with other inputs.

6. Span of resources and their source. How much worth of Kenyan currency is at disposal for this activity. What other options can be considered using the same towards the goal in question.
A. I will confirm this here later. Other options include setting up a specialized unit at the universities, adding this to university curricular. Any other suggestions. Actually all these are also things must be eventually done.

7. Outcome- Is the final product meant for the local market or the foreign one. There seems to be an unfounded assumption that once we embrace foreign standards international business will come looking for us. Is the emphasis on the soon to be papers or on the skill quality they will trigger?
A. Excellent question. We do need better standards in everything. (An example here is the quality of Masonry, or Carpentry. Is the issue that we don’t enforce standards or that at a basic level, we have lost the reference to standards in the first place?, or is it that Masons and Carpenters with half backed skills have been allowed to proliferate the industry? or even perhaps all the above!). Because we all committed to developing a world class ICT sector, the attitude towards the basics must be that everything matters. This is a sustainable approach. ICT is a human capacity sector.

8. Given the critical nature of standards and certification, wouldnt be more prudent for the Board to invest in a full fledged department that will handle the pertinent matters in that dimension. Waiting for KASNEB, KBS to set the pace for ICT certification and standardization can be deemed as inertia on the Board’s part.
B. As far as ICT standards are concerned the Ministry is already working on various dimensions as you may be aware. The Board’s role here is very project specific in order to meet the BPO /IT enabled services sector growth as outlined in the Vision 2030.