With respect to services with a high ICTs content, there is a tendency to adopt methodological approaches that set the roles and responsibilities in two distinct ways: “total solutions” versus “technology transfer to the EMB.” In short, total solutions mean the provider controls the process end to end. Technology transfer to EMB means at the end of the process, the EMB is capable of repeating the process itself without external assistance. While technology transfer is indeed often desirable this is not always necessarily the case. Deliberately choosing to outsource certain systems may sometimes be more efficient than having everything run directly by the EMB. It is however important that any such outsourcing is a conscious decision based on an efficiency analysis and not the by-product of a failed technology transfer. Of course avoiding “vendor lock” must be part of such an analysis too. The EMB should also always have an in-depth understanding of and insight into and ultimate control over the outsourced services provided to them.

The issue of appropriate transfer requires further study since it impacts on the project’s management, costing and sustainability. The level of the possible transfer should be factored into the specifications writing, before the solicitation documents are prepared. It is important to ensure that any technology transfer in place is directed at key employees of the EMB that form part of their permanent staffing structure. Staff temporarily employed and released on a cyclical nature (in line with electoral cycle demands) should possibly be excluded from consideration in this regard as they may not be available for employment during a future electoral cycle. Adequate budget must be provided to not only attract the required talent for these key posts but also to keep them. From a procurement perspective, these key role players (i.e., posts) should be identified and included in the knowledge transfer responsibilities in the supplier’s contract.

There is also the need to be aware of approaches that advertise the use of a public-private partnership known as Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT). This is a kind of form of project financing, wherein a private company receives a concession from the Government to finance, design, construct, and operate, for instance, the production and issuance of ID cards (with a fee to be paid by end users) in the context of a civil registration. This enables the project proponent to recover its investment, operating and maintenance expenses in the project.

Due to the long-term nature of the arrangement, the fees are usually raised during the concession period allowing the proponent to reach a satisfactory internal rate of return for its investment. Traditionally, such projects provide for the infrastructure (in this case biometric voter registration kits and servers) to be transferred to the government at the end of the concession period.31 (BOT) can be controversial and is not necessarily recommended when it comes to the electoral process because of the dangers of vendor lock. There may also be issues that the technology that was built and operated by the vendor becomes obsolete and requires large upgrading a shortly after the transfer.