THERE was a time when Information Technology (IT) was generally considered as a subset of Science & Technology (S&T).
In layman terms, it could be said that IT is really just an offshoot of S&T, but it seems that IT took on a life of its own and then it practically took on a separate path.
Somewhere along the way however, some bright minds eventually realized that there should be convergence between IT and communications technology, hence the combined acronym for Information and Communications Technology (ICT).
Somewhere between here and there, other bright minds must have realized that information technology could be used for communications purposes and vice versa, communications technology could be used for information purposes.
Having said all these however, we should not forget that it is still S&T that is continuing to improve both information technology and communications technology, jointly and severally.
I could say that I am one of those who were directly in the frontlines of the convergence of IT and communications technology right there at the trenches, so to speak. It happened when I was still with the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), at the time when I was a Special Assistant representing the DFA in both the Science & Technology Coordinating Council (STCC) and the National Information Technology Council (NITC).
It could be said that at that time, I was already traversing the two separate worlds of S&T and IT, at least in the policy level. Also at about the same time however, the DFA decided to merge the old Code, Radio and Telephone (CORATEL) Division and the new Management Information Services (MIS) Division and I was assigned as the Director.
In order to bring together the younger IT staff and the older communications staff, I had to literally break down the physical wall that divided the two offices. Looking back, I could say that my experience in both ICT policies and programs prepared me well for my next position as Director General of the National Computer Center (NCC).
Ever since I started working in the government, I have always believed that all governance work could be separated into four classifications, namely (1) Policies, (2), Plans, (3) Programs and (4) Projects.
In theory, all plans, programs and projects should be based on policies. Down the line, all programs and projects should be based on plans that are in turn based on policies. In other words, there would be something fundamentally wrong if a project is started without any direct connection to specific programs, plans and policies. Chances are, these “orphan” projects could be born out of corrupt practices with the clear intentions of going around government rules./PN
