Kano did not have a data problem. It had a use problem.
The state had years of education data, an EMIS system, and a yearly school census. What it did not have was a reliable way to turn that information into better decisions. Data was being collected, but not processed well, not shared well, and not used consistently by the people responsible for planning and delivery.
My role
Research and strategy lead on a formative study for PERL / DFID on how ICT and education data systems could better support policymaking and service delivery in Kano State.
What I looked at
I examined the education-data chain from collection to use: the annual school census, the EMIS infrastructure behind it, the institutional habits around analysis, and the practical constraints inside government. The work drew on interviews, observation, and a close look at how information actually moved through the system.
What the report argued
The main point was simple: collecting more data would not fix much on its own. The state needed stronger data architecture, better processing, clearer presentation, and a more realistic approach to e-governance. In other words, the problem was not just technical. It was institutional.
Why it mattered
That distinction matters. Governments often talk about digitization as if software is the reform. It usually is not. The harder work is building the routines, incentives, and capacity that make information usable once it exists.