Community Technology Centers:

Exploring a Tool for Rural Community Development

(part 3 of 6)

by Christopher J. Campbell

The Center for Rural Massachusetts

University of Massachusetts, Amherst

© Copyright 1995 Center for Rural Massachusetts and Christopher J. Campbell

This document contains many links. If you find that one is no longer in existence please contact us at:
ruralma@larp.umass.edu

DESCRIPTIONS AND ASSESSMENTS OF TELECENTERS

Many rural communities around the world have seen opportunities and challenges in the rapid advancement of telecommunications and computer networks. While there are many applications of the technology, some communities have seen an advantage in multi-sector collaboration. A small literature of articles, reports, and conference presentations is now becoming available, describing the various kinds of telecenters. The first generation of description and assessment of European community technology centers, often called "telecottages," is available. In the U. S., it is possible to see how a new generation of community technology centers is being planned. It is useful to supplement this information with information from relatives of the community technology center idea, such as telework centers, business incubators.

Community Technology Centers

Telecottages

Outside the U.S., the most common name for the community technology center is the "telecottage." Telecottages have existed outside the U.S. since 1985. The concept apparently was first implemented in Sweden, where their official names are Community Teleservice Centers. These centers have central locations in isolated rural communities and typically have personal computers, printers, a modem, a fax machine, and a consultant (Grimes 1992, 274-275). The telecottage idea has spread to a large number of countries. The Telecottage Association, a British organization, counts 120 telecottages in the United Kingdom, 49 in Finland, 40 in Australia, and 23 in Sweden. It also lists telecottages in Germany, Portugal, Ireland, Denmark, Canada, Norway, and Brazil (Denbigh 1994). Typical Nordic and British telecottages offer many similar kinds of services, though sometimes they are classified somewhat differently. In general, some of the services that these European telecottages have offered are: Almost all of the Nordic telecottages have been organized as joint-stock companies with both public and private shareholders. However, they come with a variety of emphases. Some put educational activities first, others social services. Some are primarily oriented to serve the computer and telecommunication needs of local businesses and are actually expected to turn a profit (Qvortrup 1989, 62-63). Most successful telecottages begin with at least some public-sector funding, though some have achieved independence from subsidy (Bagley, Mannering, and Mokhtarian 1994, S-5). In addition to providing businesses with information or technology-based services on a shared basis, they can also provide a means of transition for local business use of technology: businesses gain exposure to telecommunications or computer services at the telecottage, and eventually some decide to obtain the service themselves (Qvortrup 1989, 64). This demand-stimulation can be a means of bringing about the general provision of higher telecommunication transmission quality.

The importance of these telecottages lies in reducing several disadvantages that a rural community may have in regard to telecommunications and information technology. Through the sharing of equipment, they reduce its costs. They provide access to networks of information and services that would otherwise be difficult to access. They also enable rural residents and businesses to increase their level of competence with technology by providing consulting and training (Qvortrup 1989, 68). Qvortrup argues that telecottages, if properly planned, have the potential to benefit rural communities through "real" decentralization while avoiding the risk of technology bringing "superficial" decentralization with a social centralization. They can do this by being a local business, a center of community activity where social ties can develop, a place where residents have the opportunity to build skills naturally, when they can connect them with a desired task, and a means of connecting through networks the specialized skills or knowledge available in one rural community with that available in other rural communities to simulate the diverse skills and knowledge available in urban areas (Qvortrup 1989, 66-68).

Those who have worked to establish these centers have also found it important that they be integrated into the community (Denbigh 1994; Qvortrup 1989, 68). This means, among other things, using local people to run the center, providing instruction and assistance on technology topics to people in a flexible and "as needed" basis, and making the telecottage a place for informal cultural, social, and political interaction, both using technology and not (Qvortrup 1989, 68).

On a recent speech in the United States, Alan Denbigh of the Telecottage Association discussed the findings of a study of telecottages in the Highlands and Islands regions of Scotland. Among its findings were:

In the U. S., the multiple-function model offered by the telecottage also appears to be taking hold in the development of various rural telecenters (Bagley, Mannering, and Mokhtarian 1994, S-6). A discussion of some of these American efforts follow next.

U. S. Efforts

In the U.S. an initiative by the Kentucky Science and Technology Council and two rural Kentucky communities comes close to the spirit of the telecottage. The "rural televillage" can be understood as a form of mixed-use community network with a "televillage center" at its heart. The Kentucky Science and Technology Council describes the televillage center this way:

The Center is a mixed-use facility (public and private) providing a comprehensive package of services to the larger Televillage. The Center can support a variety of customers with services provided on-site or remotely. Office space may be available and organizations may be a part of or consolidated with the Center....
The Center's service package could include computer usage, video and document conferencing, fax, optical scanning, voice and electronic mail, information access, training and consultation (Kentucky Science and Technology Council 1994, 4-5).

The Council gives examples of a wide range of roles that this combination of center and network could play. For companies, the televillage and televillage center could function as an incubator, provide access to equipment, technical assistance, or information, or provide rentable space for telecommuters or satellite offices. It could function as a distance learning and telemedicine facility. Libraries could take up residence or provide remote access to on-line resources, and governments could provide local electronic access to information and services. Civic organizations could use meeting spaces and video conferencing equipment (Kentucky Science and Technology Council 1994, 5-6). The concept envisions an "Information Broker" to assist with training and accessing information (Kentucky Science and Technology Council 1994, 8).

In the United States, two rural pilot sites in Kentucky, Pikeville and Elizabethtown, are developing televillages serving rural regions of ten-counties each. This is the result of a feasibility study completed by the Kentucky Science and Technology Council in 1992. One site is a remote mountainous community, while the other is located in an agricultural and manufacturing region closer to population centers (Kentucky Science and Technology Council 1994, 11-12). The pilot projects are organized as non-profit corporations with an up-front subsidy. However, they are intended to be increasingly self-supporting (Kentucky Science and Technology Council 1994, 9).

The televillage initiative originally began as a consideration of rural telecommuting centers. These were seen as a vehicle for rural economic development. One of those interviewed during the feasibility study expressed his hopes for a telecommuting center in terms that are particularly relevant for Massachusetts:

I will be able to say to those people "Come to Kentucky and live. Bring your equipment; we have the facilities to support your equipment. Help our businesses here. And at the same time, you can telecommute to Silicon Valley or Route 128 ... in Massachusetts, and you can serve those markets as well, but you're not going to be living in the smog, you're not going to be living in the high crime areas, you're going to be here in the Bluegrass" (Kay 1991, 17).

However, the concept expanded beyond telework when the feasibility study concluded that in natural-resource dependent rural communities in Kentucky, the potential demand for a center was as great from public, heath care, and educational sectors as from the business sector (Kentucky Science and Technology Council 1992, 11).

Either televillage center or telecottage could be used here instead of the name community technology center. However, the term televillage center is trademarked, and the Kentucky Science and Technology Council is its primarily user. The term telecottage, although common abroad, receives little use in the U.S. The name "community technology center" is used instead after an effort using that term in the planning stages in Burlington, Vermont that promises to offer a mixed-use center to low-income residents of a Burlington neighborhood. Community technology center has also been used as a general term by the Playing to Win Network in Newton, Massachusetts to describe the efforts of many of its urban affiliates who offer centers with computers and telecommunications to socially and/or economically disadvantaged groups.

The Old North End Community Technology Center in Burlington, Vermont, though not rural, is planned to open in the summer and fall of 1995. This program is sponsored by the local community access cable television station, which is looking to expand its provision of public access beyond broadcasting and is supported by the city. It plans to establish a number of community computing sites and one central community technology center in the Burlington Enterprise Zone. These sites will provide technology training programs for neighborhood residents and micro-business development (the anchor activities), and other services including adult, teen and children's education. The program is looking for a variety of host institutions and plans to incorporate community institutions, such as the library branch, literacy brigade, after-school program, teen outpost, public access television facility and civic computer network (Chittenden Community Television 1994a; Chittenden Community Television 1994b).

Although community technology centers are not so common in America as in other countries, it is not difficult to see how they could be. As Bonnet optimistically puts it in his report for the Council of Governors' Policy Advisors:

Virtually every rural community has an underutilized room that could be outfitted with modern telecommunications equipment. It might be the community room of the library, space in the courthouse or school, or even in an abandoned building. In many circumstances, the cost of obtaining the equipment and providing appropriate training for local workers would not be prohibitive (Bonnett 1993, 96-97).

Bonnet also lists the potential barriers to this development: an inferior level of service from the existing telephone system (in some areas), the lack of organizational capacity to coordinate such projects, and the lack of leadership to make it happen (Bonnett 1993, 97). Although some rural communities may not be able to overcome these barriers, it seems likely that there will be more community technology center-type developments in the future.

Telework and Telework Centers

There are many technology applications related to a community technology center, all lacking a uniform terminology at the present time. The use of telecommunications in work and business has spawned the greatest number of terms. "Telecommuting" is a relatively common term in the United States and it generally refers to the use of telecommunications to substitute for all or part of a journey to a worksite. In short, it is bringing the work to the worker instead of vice versa. A broader term, and one with more international usage is "teleworking." While teleworking is often a synonym for telecommuting, it can also imply the use of telecommunications in situations where there is not really a "commute" to speak of, such as self-employed, home-based workers, private consultants, or contract workers. One kind of teleworker that has received much attention in the popular press is the "lone eagle," a term coined by the Center for the New West, a Denver-based think tank. Lone eagles are professionals and business people who are knowledge workers and move to rural areas and run their business through faxes, modem, express mail, and airplane tickets. They work alone or with a very small staff (Burgess 1994, 4). The lone eagle concept has received a relatively large amount of attention among those reporting on rural economic development.

Until recently, telework was most often associated with full-time, home-based work, but now the concept of telework at centers in the neighborhood or local community has become more common. Teleworking also need not happen full-time. Teleworkers may work full-time at home, at a center, or as often happens, split their time between both or either one and a central office. Among telecommuters, the part-time telecommuter is currently most common (Handy and Mokhtarian 1995, 101). The Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Davis has prepared a broad review of the practice of telecommuting centers and related concepts. This study compiles brief descriptions of a large number of telecenters with a work component from around the world, and provides eight detailed case studies (Bagley, Mannering, and Mokhtarian 1994).

One important reservation to home-based telecommuting is that it can cause some employees to feel isolated because of missed daily social and professional interaction (Sell and Jacobs 1994, 89). Bagley, Mannering, and Mokhtarian discuss this and some of the other reasons why center-based telecommuting may be preferable to home-based telecommuting for some workers: providing boundaries between work and home, a more desirable working environment in some cases and greater opportunities for social and possibly professional interaction than the home. The authors also suggest that the economics of shared space and shared equipment would make telecommuting at a center more feasible for more workers than telecommuting at home. For the employer, a center can more economically provide greater facilities, equipment, and sometimes staffing support. Management may be more comfortable with the professional image and liability of a center and may feel more confident that employees are actually working (Bagley, Mannering, and Mokhtarian 1994, S-3 - S-4).

Goals of rural telecenters with a work component may vary. Reduction of commuting time can be an important goal in exurban areas. However, the authors envisioned telework centers in rural market towns more often taking the form of local business centers, both attracting self-employed professionals to the area and organizing local residents (Bagley, Mannering, and Mokhtarian 1994, 6-11). The Nebraska Department of Economic Development is looking for communities in which to locate telebusiness centers. These telebusiness centers, not yet built, would be facilities owned and operated by a local small city or co-op and would be built for importing electronic work to the community from around the county and the world (Hoy 1995).

Bagley, Mannering, and Mokhtarian identified three major types of telework facilities: the telecottage, the single-employer telecenter, and the multi-employer telecenter. They identify the single-employer satellite office and the small rural telecottage as the most successful types, as defined by continued operation past the first one or two years. They conclude that a key element of the telecottage concept is that it combines more than one goal (Bagley, Mannering, and Mokhtarian 1994, S-5).

Other Community Uses of Telecommunications and Computers

Obviously, telecommunications and computer technology are useful in sectors other than business and work. There are examples of innovative uses in education, health care, government, and at libraries, to name some. These many applications of computer and telecommunications technology are all potential building blocks for a community technology center.

Distance learning is a term that covers a variety of applications of telecommunications to education, and it has no one definitive definition. Broadly speaking, it can describe anything from early examples like televised educational programming to people doing individual research using remote databases. It can describe applications in elementary through adult education. Often, though not always, it has a video component. Distance learning is an alternative to sending rural students of any age to distant communities for educational opportunity.

There are some names which have developed for centers where people learn how to use computer and telecommunications technology. The Nebraska Department of Economic Development has given the name technology learning centers to places where community members in general and local businesses can have access to computers, and learn about how to use them (Hoy 1995). Technology learning center is also a term used by the Playing to Win Network, a network of non-profit organizations that help disadvantaged communities gain access to information technology through shared computer and telecomputing facilities and training (Briscoe and Mark 1995, 1-3). A narrower term, focusing on computer technology, is community computing center, the term used by several affiliates in the New York and Boston areas.

Telemedicine is being used to help remedy shortages of doctors and specialists in some rural areas. Telemedicine generally refers to telecommunications applications where a specialist or some health-care professional with special knowledge is able to receive information on a patient in a distant location and provide advice or an opinion to the local health-care provider. Other uses of telecommunications in rural health care include communication with suppliers, in-service training and continuing education. Telecommunications has the potential to reduce the cost and improve the quality of rural health care (http://www.nptn.org:80/rin/.

The Playing to Win Network

Based in Newton, Massachusetts, Playing to Win is a network of affiliated centers and organizations interested in increasing access to computers, computer education and related technologies, such as telecommunications. The centers are called a variety of names, However, the name of their newsletter is "Community Technology Center Notes and News." (Not all affiliates, however, are community technology centers in the sense used in this research.) The affiliated centers are located mostly, though, not exclusively, in the New York City and Boston areas. Their focus has been specifically on socially and/or economically disadvantaged groups, primarily in urban areas. They provide practical information on the organization, planning, management, and programming of community computing and telecommunications centers, places where community members can come to use and learn about computers and related technology.

The affiliates that provide these services are a diverse group of community organizations: community-access television stations, youth development agencies, education and training centers, an after school tutoring and mentoring program, an arts program, family educational centers, and an emergency shelter (Briscoe and Mark 1995, 4). Recently, the network completed an evaluation of its efforts that included a questionnaire and interviews directed at affiliates. One program director stated that access to technology is more than only providing it; the people they serve must also be given the notion that they could actually use technology to improve their lives (Briscoe and Mark 1995, 4). Some affiliates also offer non-technology services. Examples include daycare, homework assistance, GED preparation, housing assistance, career services, and recreational opportunities (Briscoe and Mark 1995, 5). The affiliates of Playing to Win are diverse in their origins, and they often introduce technology to their communities in the context of a diverse set of offerings.

Affiliates of Playing to Win value the advantages that being part of a network offers. These advantages include reducing isolation, learning from others' experience, mentoring and guidance (Briscoe and Mark 1995, 7). Being part of a network means that these centers do not only have to rely on their own knowledge and abilities.

Business Incubators

Not many business incubators currently are community technology centers or telecenters. However, the inclusion of business incubators in telecenters is a development some plan or forecast (Kentucky Science and Technology Council 1994, 5; Thomas 1995b; Yovovich 1994, 16). For example, the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 charges the Rural Electrification Administration with creating rural business incubators with some of the characteristics of a community technology center (Public Law 101-624, October 23, 1990, sec. 502(a)(3)).

Like community technology centers, business incubators are a young idea. Most opened after 1980 (National Business Incubation Association 1992, 7). Also like business incubators, community technology centers are places where multiple users share access to equipment and services. This seeming relationship suggests that those developing community technology centers could learn something from the example of this slightly older cousin. In 1991 the National Business Incubation Association surveyed the managers of the 425 business incubators known to it at the time (National Business Incubation Association 1992, 1). Slightly more than half the respondents were sponsored by a government or public agency, about fifteen percent by an educational institution, less than ten percent by a for-profit company, and one quarter were hybrids (National Business Incubation Association 1992, 9). About ninety percent accepted anchor tenants, while about half actually had them (National Business Incubation Association 1992, 11). (Large anchor tenants can often offer a source of income that can counterbalance the instability of many small, start-up firms.) Ninety-five percent provided networking opportunities and the same percentage offered management or technical services. These services can be in-house, through a network of community support, or through incubator tenants who provide services to other tenants. The survey reported that most business incubators are business development centers that offer a wide variety of services to entrepreneurs (National Business Incubation Association 1992, 14). As such, they represent a model for the development of community technology centers.

To: Previous section

To: Next section

To: Table of Contents

To: Reference list

To: CRM Home Page

To: UMass Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning

Last updated July 22, 1995
by Christopher J. Campbell

© Copyright 1995 Center for Rural Massachusetts

E-mail comments to CRM at:

ruralma@larp.umass.edu

Please e-mail us if you establish links to this page or any of our other pages. This will allow us to keep you informed (to the best of our ability) of changes.