Caleb University’s Disruptive Innovation Doctrine (CUDID): The Case of Professor Wole Soyinka

INTERNATIoNAL BY Bola A. Akinterinwa

Caleb University’s First International Conference on ‘innovation’ in global development took place on Tuesday, 26th and Wednesday, 27th October 2021. The conference, which had as theme ‘#Future Forward, Disruptive Innovation: What Next?’ was organized into three main parts: opening ceremony, paper presentations, and syndicate sessions. It is both hybrid and virtual in organization. The hybrid aspect took place at the auditorium of the Caleb University (CU) in Imota, Ogun.

The conference was quite interesting from many perspectives. First, it truly had an international character, especially because many of the paper presenters were from different countries. Second, all the paper presentations at the conference dealt with the question of innovation from different disciplinary methodologies, which enabled the presenters and participants to discuss justifiably on the basis of psychology of human differences. Perspectives vary considerably from one presenter to another. Third, and perhaps more importantly, the CU came up with the hypothesis of a disruptive innovation, which we refer to as a doctrine here.

Put differently, an innovation effort can be good but can still also be disruptive. That an innovation can be disruptive went beyond being considered as a hypothesis. Disruptive innovation was taken as a thesis, that prompted an anti-thesis and a synthesis from which what we called Caleb University’s Disruptive Innovation Doctrine (CUDID) has emerged. What is particularly noteworthy is that the notion of disruptive innovation has been elevated to the level of a doctrine. Etymologically, a doctrine is derived from two Latin words: doctrina, meaning teaching; docere, meaning to teach. It also originated from an old French word, doctrine, which also means a doctor, which is also a Latin word referring to a teacher.

The implication of the CU coming up with an innovation doctrine is simply to suggest that the CU wants to teach the world, or provide leadership in, the business of innovation. This observation is intrinsic in the theme of the international conference. Interrogatively put, what is a ‘future forward’? What makes an innovation disruptive? ‘Future forward’ raises the relationship between future and forward, in which case, future can mean immediate future, while forward can mean a distant future or the future after immediate future.

When relating them together, how does the immediate future push the ‘future’ forward further or enhance innovations? Under what circumstances will there not be disruptions when the explications on both the ‘immediate future’ and the ‘future thereafter’ will be conjectural? The conference provided the theoretical explanations on innovation as an issue in global development efforts, while the experiential inability of Professor Wole Soyinka to return from France to Nigeria of which he is a citizen by ius sanguinis, serves as a coincidental empirical illustration of the limitations of innovation. Let us begin with the paper presentations.

Paper Submissions and CUDID

More than fifty papers were abstracted and presented but emphasis is placed here on those related to the CUDID. In this regard, Dr Muritala Awodun, Professor of Business and Entrepreneurship at the Crown-Hill University in Kwara State, differentiated between productive, unproductive, and destructive entrepreneurship in his paper, entitled “A Measure of Impacts of Productive, Unproductive and destructive Entrepreneurship on Economic growth and Development.” He explicated their impacts on economic growth and development. As he put it, productive entrepreneurs are people engaged in enterprising activities that generate value within society, such as the creation of new and innovative technologies. In the same vein of thinking, when there is no value added we talk about unproductive entrepreneurs. When entrepreneurs engage in harmful or destruction of value, then they fall under disruptive innovation.

O.E. Afam, T.O. Ige, and M. Olumoye adopted a qualitative meta-synthesis approach in their analysis of the roles of agency banking in their paper, “Financial Inclusion and Sustainable Digital Economy.” Even though they noted that ‘there is steady progress towards financial inclusion through agency banking,’ the progress has many critical challenges, such as ‘low financial literacy, insufficient infrastructure, inadequate and inefficient technology-based facilities introduced by financial institutions. These challenges require that Government should seek to leverage on available technology, incentivize the telecommunication sector to improve services in rural areas. In their eyes, the leverage has the potential to facilitate the access of customers to mobile banking, automated teller machines (ATMs), point-of-sale (POS) devices and representative banking (agent banking).

Odunola M. Aikomo’s paper on “Globalisation and the Crisis of Dependency: World Order in a Pandemic Year,” is quite interesting from the perspective of disruptive innovation. Aikomo noted that globalization has facilitated interconnectivity among nation-states and impacting in various aspects of human life. However, he also argued that this development has ‘collapsed the regular structure of the States, creating a borderless globe where technological advancement facilitates huge networks that draws global practices into local happenings and constitute a basis for trade and liberalized markets. And more importantly, Aikomo has it that ‘disruption in the industrial and supply chains in the heat of the pandemic in 2020 exposed the fragility in the foundation of the global economy that hinges on comparative advantage and market principles.’

Audu Adebanke and Ajayi Boluwatife, in their paper entitled “Technological Innovation and Work Life Balance: A Review of Literature,” observed that, grosso modo, employees are attracted to organisations that are known to practise work-life balance and that there have been advancements in technological innovations which transform working patterns. They argued that technological innovations have a significant effect on work-life balance, but cautioned that the effect of technological innovation on work-life balance, if not properly managed is negative. This means that if not properly planned for, with advances in technological innovation, the less the attainment of work-life balance.’ They therefore recommended that work-life balance be properly planned for when considering the adoption of technological innovations.

Particularly noteworthy is the paper on ‘Disruptive Technology on the Cyberspace: The Contestation between Criminal Justice System and Cybercriminals.’ It was presented by Chiji Longinus Ezeji. While admitting that the adoption of telecommunication technologies has contributed positively to globalization, he also observed that telecommunication technologies pose a threat to many economies, as they have prompted a surge in cybercrime which also threatens health, education, safety and security.

As Ezeji put it, ‘the dark web is where cybercriminals buy and sell malware, exploit kits, and cyber-attack services, which they use to strike victims, including businesses, governments, utilities and essential services. A single cyberattack could cripple entire cities, join forces with such intentions.’ And perhaps more notably, he submitted that ‘cybercrime increased exponentially despite the promulgation of Cybercrime Prevention and Prohibition Act of 2015.’

Igbene Oritsetinmeyin presented his paper on “Digital Credit in Nigeria: A Focus on Nano-Loans, the Bridge and the Widening Gap” and identified the nature and complexity of problems which loan providers and borrowers face in the age of digital innovation in the context of financial services in Nigeria. He noted that ‘digital credit represents a sharp turn from traditional credit systems as it instantiates and increases the use of smart texhnology,’ while in the context of Nigeria, digital credit, ‘as a digital financial novelty, inevitably leaves a double-edged and widening gap in which both the lenders and borrowers are faced with a new type of challenge being the cost of data and its protection.’

There were two papers on ‘Innovation in Politics and Human Development’ differently presented by Obajinmi Oludayo Jadesola of the CU and Professor Bola A. Akinterinwa of the Bolytag Centre for International Diplomacy and Strategic Studies (BOCIDASS), Yaba, Lagos. Olujinmi Jadesola gave an exegesis of the challenges of politics in the process of governance and on how innovation is related to politics and human development at the Syndicate Session 7.

Professor Akinterinwa considered innovation as life, as a process, and essentially as science and technology, as well as arts and humanities. In this regard, science and technology anticipates, looking forward, while arts and humanities look backward. Innovation is looking backward to improve on the future. He posited that innovation, in whatever area of human development, is always first a resultant from a political decision to innovate and from subsequent efforts at innovation.

More importantly, Akinterinwa believes that political innovation should focus more on development and introduction of citizen diplomacy in the governance of Nigeria, enable the Nigerians in Diaspora to vote in any Nigerian diplomatic mission nearest to them, and ensure direct party primaries. He not only argued that the CU should intellectually sustain the CUDID, but also believed that it is when Nigeria is freed from political dishonesty and chicanery that political innovation can thrive with objectivity and honesty of purpose at the level of science and technology and arts and humanities.

Dr. James Nwoye’s paper was on “Entrepreneurial Strategies for Managing Disruptive Innovations.” He defines disruptive innovation as a ‘new product or service that is so innovative that it disrupts the existing market and forces businesses in that market to devise new strategies for managing their business to avoid suffering huge losses and possibly going out of business.’ Nwoye identified entrepreneurship as a veritable driver of disruptive innovation, positing that the disruption of existing market creates new phenomenon that ultimately delivers new value to consumers and the society.

Above all, there were several papers focusing on, proposing, or advocating some innovative measures. Samuel O. Oladimeji wants the development of a ‘web-based research and innovation ecosystem for university-industry partnership. Olaoye Gabriel Ogunyemi et al are proposing a solar power for the CU. Dr. S.A. Oyesode wants a collaborative enhancement amongst AEC professionals in Bim Cloud Computing in the post COVID-19 era. It is in light of the foregoing that the CUDID should be investigated and that its application to the case of Professor Wole Soyinka should be explicated.

Wole Soyinka and CUDID

Professor Soyinka gave a narrative of how he was stopped from entering Nigeria from France in a Channelstv-posted video and reported in various media platforms. The first time he was to board an Air France aircraft enroute Nigeria, the problem of his not having the PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) test, which like antigen, is a standard method of rapidly diagnosing COVID-19, was raised after he had gone through all customs, immigration, and other security checks, as well as met all COVID 19 vaccination requirements. He was delayed for 72 hours before leaving the Charles de Gaulle airport to return to Paris. And true enough, Professor Soyinka admitted his fault or ignorance of having not known that the PCR was a requirement, like the antigen test, before anyone can be admitted into Nigeria.

Professor Soyinka’s second experience occurred last week and was more disturbingly. This time, in addition to the COVID-19 vaccinations and possession of the PCR test certificate, it was again the requirement of a permission obtainable from the Nigerian Travel Portal, but which was either difficult to access or totally inaccessible. Professor Soyinka narrated how from 10 am through 2 pm, fruitless efforts were made to access the Nigerian portal. He complained bitterly about the procedure to be followed in securing Nigeria’s permission to enter Nigeria. In his view, the procedure was ludicrous, ridiculous, unnecessary and avoidable.

Put differently, at the level of disruptive innovation, it was thanks to innovative technology that the Government of Nigeria has been able to introduce a digital platform that requires a particular procedure to be followed either in compliance with the COVID-19 protocol or immigration and security control, which ideally should be applicable to foreigners and not to Nigerian nationals and citizens.

From the experience of Professor Soyinka, there is no disputing the fact that technological innovation can be very disruptive if its application is not well mastered. It is generally agreed that the cardinal objective of innovations is to make life better for people through improved services, enduring security of life and property. Most unfortunately, however, Nigeria has a digital platform that is disruptive in design, that defeats the purpose of innovation as an instrument for improving the quality of life. It creates unforetold inconveniences and obstacles for people in the conduct and management of the daily activities of people, and thus making the innovation of the Nigerian Travel Portal very disruptive in effect and therefore good for nothing.

If Professor Soyinka had presented himself as a global citizen, he might have been given a preferential treatment and allowed to travel to Nigeria, bearing in mind that he would be given his due national respect on arrival or could always sort himself out in Nigeria. But imagine the many Nigerians who were stranded in the airport because they did not have Schengen visa, and therefore could not venture to go back to their hotels. Imagine the other Nigerians who do not have the status of Professor Soyinka? Professor Soyinka drew attention to the questions asked in the application form for permission to enter Nigeria. He said they were, at best, irrelevant to the COVID-19 protocolar requirement. And perhaps more disturbingly, why are other portals in other countries working efficiently and those of Nigeria are always problematic? Is the problem that of the portal or that of human being? How does Nigeria’s foreign policy respond to the general complaints by Nigerians and foreigners about difficulties in accessing Nigeria’s Travel Portal?

In responding to these questions, CUDID requires further elucidation at this juncture. Based on the various paper presentations, and particularly as shown from the experience of Professor Soyinka, there is no disputing the fact that there are many critical issues in the CU’s doctrine of disruptive innovation. First, it is not simply that innovation can be disruptive, it is disruptive. Second, the disruption may not be a resultant of technological deficiency, but particularly due to the mania of application of the technology, policy misdirection and lack of public enlightenment on the new innovation.

In this regard, the CU has a special challenge to address: attitudinal innovation. What is the appropriate attitude to an innovation, especially in terms of effective application and preventing it from being destructive in outcome? Again, from the experience of Professor Soyinka, how do we explain the attitudinal delay in making the Nigerian Travel Portal accessible? Why delays for several hours and for days? Was the problem technological in terms of technical fault? Is it a question of sabotage or official ineptitude and remissness? Indiscipline in the civil and public service is a truism. In Abuja, the political capital, no Minister is on record to resume duty at 8 am. Civil servants are in heavy traffic going to office even by 9 am. How can the CU address innovation of attitude to official work? How does it come up with a technology that will deter setting public buildings ablaze to destroy documents on embezzled public funds?

And true enough, military weapons are meant to kill. Weapons manufacturers cannot but run out of business in the absence of crises, conflicts, and wars. Crises and conflicts are critical to the survival of the arms industry. Even when there is relative peace, crises and conflicts are consciously created so that there will be a good basis for acquisition of new weapons. Thus, should innovative efforts be encouraged in the weapons industry? Africa is a terra cognita for very bad governance. This means that people’s revolt cannot be ruled out. This means that African governments will always be interested in anti-insurrection weapons. Quo vadis in this regard?

In the whole of Africa, no country is on record to have the technology of manufacturing mobile telephone handsets, yet the material components are found in Africa, particularly in the Congo. No country has the technology of manufacturing motor vehicles. What is generally being done is an assemblage of Completely Knocked Down (CKD) parts. This is what the Peugeot Automobiles of Nigeria (PAN) is doing. In spite of the Agreement done in 1975 requiring that domestic content of Peugeot 504, the vehicle in vogue by then, should be gradually increased to ensure that there would be transfer of technology to the Nigerian people within the first three decades. In 2021, there is nothing like transfer of technology. What was stopped was airlifting by the UTA Airlines of the CKD from Sochaut in France to Kaduna. No one wants to transfer technology, especially gratis.

In which way can the CU facilitate the evolvement of an original technology, be it in the automobile sector, manufacturing, oil exploration and exploitation, etc., that will be peculiar to Africa and particularly to Nigeria? Is it not possible to bring innovation to Africa’s local technologies? What is wrong in technologizing Africa’s traditional efforts?

Indisputably, innovation can be disruptive, but should it be consciously disruptive in design? Should it only be expected to be a resultant of technical default? CUDID is not simply that there are cases of disruptive innovation but also that the future has the likelihood to continue to play host to disruption in innovative efforts. As such, by implications, are disruptive innovations preventable? Which type of reeducation of the human mind is required to innovate or re-innovate to ensure stability of the human mind? In objectively responding to these questions, the CU may need to create a special CU Technology Innovation Centre (CUTIC), with the ultimate objective of seeking to coordinate all studies by various innovation centres in Africa. The CU should provide research leadership, put in place necessary research laboratories, and seek to host the African headquarters. In doing this, involving the African Union, and therefore going through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for support, cannot but be a desideratum. In essence, the CU will need to go beyond the CUDID. It should give a concrete and conceptual meaning to it. Research on African funding and international partnerships are necessary. Above all, the CU doctrine should address the imbalance between exclusive and concurrent lists in the 1999 Constitution. It is by so doing that there can be a basis for true federalism and innovations in politics.