While there is still money to be made out of information technology, many young techpreneurs are acting against the wishes of parents who would like them to follow the traditional routes, leading to a career in either medicine or law.
And the parents have a good reason: Less than 20 years ago, the only "techpreneurs" doing the rounds were the guys who knew how to set up modems, network computers, and repair motherboards, and that was not really lucrative in the long run.
Analysts and programmers were a rare phenomenon, and those who really knew the business end of a mouse were employed by the big IT companies to work on complex systems.
Most were database analysts and worked on systems so ancient that it would take the better part of 10 minutes to get the computer into a running state — and even then, there were huge databases, so loading them would take another 10 minutes.
There were a handful of websites then, mostly run by internet service providers (ISPs) and non-govermental organisations (NGOs). The government was yet to know what an e-mail is and was still paying obeisance to letters and telegrams.
Fast-forward to the 20oos, an era during which techpreneurs face the daunting task of making their ideas and software turn into more than food on the table.
The business of making money out of ICT is not as straightforward as sending an e-mail, hence many people cannot understand the fixation some have on information technology.
Technology has produced the largest number of business casualties in the world's history. The success rate is extremely low, but once gold is struck, it remains as solid for as long as one can keeps their senses on point, provided the socio-economic environment remains favourable.
So, why is technology, this much-talked-about thing, not taking us to nirvana? There are a number of reasons, and we will deal with them one by one:
Hype
The only things that can "out-hype" technology with varying certainty are babies, politics, terrorism, war, and entertainment. As expected, these too produce a large number of casualties.
Technology built around hype is the new order, with ideas that should work not really working, and those that should not work actually doing so. Hype is necessary in technology, but under specific terms.
For instance, hype is cool when a service achieves above and beyond its expectations for a significant number of quarters and actually becomes profitable. Is it easy? Not quite. Creating the service is not even Step 1, but just one variable among many.
Before getting down to building a software application, one needs to understand the value expected by the audience. That value is not possessed in one person's mind, but should be perceived by the audience, which should then determine the hype you deserve.
However, in many cases, the techpreneur and friends create the hype without ever delivering value. The highest online value creates relevance and longevity.
Look at it this way, e-mail adds value to companies and individuals because it has hastened communication and requires very little overhead. It is easy to use and generally available to everyone at low cost. The value generated vastly outweighs the overheads.
Now, if most techpreneurs would look at their work that way, there would be a huge reduction in the number of casualties. Unfortunately, a large following of today's world believes in the hype created on social media, which is proving to be an extremely bad mistake. Value is far greater than hype.
Cloning
A Brazilian journalist who was in Kenya to do a story on local technology made a comment that made me realise two things.
First, I was the wrong person to be talking to, and second, there are just too many clones around. She stated that since she had arrived here, everyone she had met was doing some form of mobile payment system or cash transfer system.
There is a lot of truth in those sentiments and if you look around, there are many payment systems in Kenya, all trying to either dethrone Safaricom's M-Pesa or complement it, and few people have met success, especially without the M-Pesa application programming interface (API).
The question became, what was everyone else doing? More importantly, how were they surviving?
A market, depending on its size, should only have as many players as those that can actually survive being there. Sadly, there are probably no more than 10 money payment providers making any money.
There are many more players in the market, which makes understanding what they do difficult. Worse is the attempt to clone existing Western technology to fit this market, in the form of services and apps, among other peripheries.
The type of service in this case is irrelevant, considering the one key factor that glaringly exists — practicality.
As I have been taught, and now preach, just because it works in the West does not mean it will work here. It may, but it would be within limited degrees of success.
For instance, the local version of the group buying model was very touch-and-go in the beginning, but chances of a success story were worse than slim. It simply did not make any economic sense and the model they were trying to replicate was actually facing stiff challenges.
To this day, the whole theory feels weak, it makes sense from a promotional sense, but to imagine that this would be a daily beat reminds me of the dotcom bubble.
That said, you have to admire Kenyans for their innovation. They have managed to modify the plan and are now having a much easier time becoming a solid business.
The question of whether this is long-term success or just a way of stemming the bleeding is yet to be seen.
But the short of it is simple, we need to build things relevant and practical for this market. Just because a company in London has made a billion pounds does not mean that if you copy them, it will work. Some markets just do not work that way.
Management
"You will not make money unless you are having fun," goes a popular quote. I agree. When you are doing something, liking it is not enough commitment. Loving it is.
It is not a choice. It is a fact. A common problem is when deals are reached between startups and existing multinationals.
While the techpreneur loves this, the multinational sees a cash cow. It is the dream deal when you get a huge multinational to call you a partner. It is the road to success. If they are big, you will be big.
Right before signing away the intellectual property rights and a soul or two, there are two questions that are rarely confronted; what is in it for me in the long term?
And second, who will manage what? They may seem like two simple harmless questions, but believe me, if it does not work out, those will be the two questions plaguing your mind more than anything else.
The first question basically designates your soul to the deal. The thesis of it being a good or bad deal is detailed here, and there are offers that will leave you worse off, probably in debt and with a tattered reputation.
Let us face it, the multinationals were there way before the social media craze and will be there long after, unless we have Enron-like stories hanging around.
The same multinationals will be your friend in good times, but you will be their scapegoat when things go wrong, whether or not it was your fault. It is business.
Hence the second question: Who manages what? In this case, very unlikely it is the techpreneur. Put yourself in the position of the multinational, investing the money and equipment.
You just cannot afford to lose. Techpreneurs are simply considered contract workers, doing something for the multinational under extremely harsh terms.
They become true partners when they make a lot of money for the multinationals. This approach has left a very bad taste in almost everyone's mouth.
The person with the idea may not necessarily make the best manager, but biased management does not work either. Neither does co-leadership, as we have learned from Research In Motion.
The solution? Find someone else, an external person, whose duty is to maintain the relationship between both parties and whose main focus is to the interest of the business and not to either parties.
The only other solution is to get absorbed by the multinational, sign over your intellectual property and, just like the monopoly game, Go Back To Start.
By KAHENYA KAMUNYU
