Rwanda’s technology leaders say their biggest challenge is getting risks funded before they escalate into costly failures. Critical warnings around cybersecurity, infrastructure, and system upgrades are often raised early, but not always approved in time.
At Rwanda's first CITO East Africa Summit in Kigali, the conversation kept returning to the translation gap between the server room and the boardroom. Close to 40 technology leaders from across Rwanda's technology sectors spoke candidly about what it takes to win the argument and what it costs when you lose it.
“In my head, finance only sees IT as a cost centre,” one participant said. “That is all you are, unfortunately. So, you have to sell. And it’s not just finance, at the ownership level, they tend to view things as either a risk or an imminent security threat So that's when they will get to see: okay, this is serious.”
Several around the table described presenting a security or infrastructure need, having it declined, watching the consequence arrive, and then being asked why the problem had not been flagged earlier. The cycle is familiar enough that some have stopped treating it as a question of budget and started treating it as a question of language.
“Sometimes you have to know how to convince your management or your finance people,” one IT executive said. “And when the issue comes up, they often say it should have been flagged earlier. Sometimes you have to know how to be safe and to have that conversation in the right way before the incident, not after.”
Another participant offered a different perspective, one shaped by working in an organisation where the technology budget debate simply does not arise. When your entire product is digital, arguing for investment in the infrastructure that delivers it becomes redundant.
“If they don't invest in technology, there is nothing to sell. We don't have to convince anyone,” one leader said.
The contrast was not lost on those around the table whose monthly budget requests are anything but straightforward. One participant described a specific and recurring problem: presenting a capital expenditure figure for hardware, only to have the purchasing team return from the market with a supplier offering the same item at a fraction of the price because it was refurbished.
“They send some of the purchasing guys on the market and they say: if you're going to buy this server, you are saying $20,000, but someone in the shop in town says it costs $6,000," one technology leader said. “But they don't know that this is a refurbished product. There's a need to have the supply chain reviewed to make sure hardware entering the country is really coming from the right supply chain, from the manufacturer, not sitting refurbished on a shelf.”
A finance professional attending the summit for the first time shared a view from the other side of the table, noting that boards do engage with security questions but the challenge is knowing what they need to act.
“When you say reputation, they don't need that, they need a value, they need to see a number. When you say reputation, that means you can get fines. If you mention something like a five per cent turnover fine, then the ears will start standing up,” the executive noted.
