Various issues in this connection are already being raised from several corners. I have identified two key debates. One around the required and available time-frame to do this, and the other on the volume and affordability of the expertise and efforts needed to take up such a job.

A third area, not so visible in the discussion, is the need for a well-coordinated team, committed to work under the prevailing circumstances and limitations. I would like to touch these issues from a broad incremental approach with possible examples, as fit or required.

On the time-frame, two things are important. First we need to get a ballpark estimate of the total time required to gather necessary data with a workable degree of precision, prepare the identification cards with reasonable quality, and to distribute them to the voters or within their convenience.

Once we know that, we can see whether that time is enough or we need to stretch the election within tolerable horizons. It is difficult and somewhat resource intensive to answer the first question.

For the second question, an analysis of the current political situation and the events leading to it, points us to a trade-off between fairness and timeliness, with a feedback within themselves.

To circumvent these first stumbling steps, a graduated approach might be taken. What is needed immediately is an acceptable time-frame for holding the election, negotiated among the relevant parties.

Side by side, the voter ID project might start rolling by setting up a plans with graded priorities, each with their own high and low expectation bars. Various scenarios of problems and challenges with planned ahead contingencies have to be packaged in a set of plans around the major one.

If there is a broad-based transparency in setting and monitoring of these goals, I am positive, any well-fought adversity would be worked around with active participation from motivated voters themselves.

From the logistics standpoint, it is no doubt a humongous task even to think about preparing ninety million or so voter identification cards in a time-frame of a mere few months. We need to hunt and assemble the right experts, assuming we have enough of them.

We need supplies, a big part of which we might need to procure from outside the country and fly or ship them in. Above all, we need to connect the experts, their logistics and the clients, a task which our geography and climate make difficult, especially in remote areas.

Can we do it, if yes how soon and with what resources? Again, it is difficult to answer this question without going to the drawing board. But it would help to go one step at a time in this area as well. First I would like to heed to the need for resorting to simplicity.

Simplicity in the solution adds to flexibility in the long run. Simplicity in the user interface enhances productivity. One difficult task is to combine the two into a good user interface with a high degree of inter-operability.

With a pressed schedule like this one, a componential rather than an integrated approach might work better. One of the important issues relating to this project is the storage and backup of digital data, for which the first requirement is the adoption of a standard format.

This has to be a format with easy manipulation, low footprint and maximum portability. We have seen the example of a simple pixel/picture size jpeg standard set up by the US immigration department and used by people around the world, including the remote villages of Bangladesh, to upload data to the US government servers at no cost to the government.

The most important thing in such a high priority high profile project, many would agree, is a very good team. The reason I have taken the natural first step of team building as the last issue for discussion, is to be able to appreciate the requirements for such a team.

On the face, it might look like the most difficult task for such a huge project is to find enough micro-managers. But equally important is a smaller group of people working with the big picture in their mind.

Two criteria are usually followed in our country in selecting project leaders; either high profile experts or high-ranking generalists are picked. Without raising any serious question on the efficacy of such choices, I would like to point to the special issues of management in this particular project.

This project is being perceived by the nation as important and, to some extant immediate. Naturally there will be lot of pressure both from stakeholders and watchdogs. The big project with a shrunk timeline would demand a higher level of physical and mental involvement from the leaders.

Above all, the functionality between technical and administrative issues has to be merged with enough arts and skills. It is important for people on both sides of the spectrum to understand, appreciate and resolve each other's issues. Whether this will happen at the micro-level will depend many a ways on the leadership at various levels.

Whether this will happen in core, in turn, will depend on the existence and appreciation of such qualities in people from both sides. Shunning the usual practice of picking a single project leader, we can choose a core team with the necessary combination, a team that can add to their productivity by triangulating on each other's expertise.

There is a risk of such a team looking for skirmishes rather than skills, but some of those could be pre-empted by a sufficiently well devised project charter read with well-intentioned people.

Despite the overall enthusiasm and support from our development partners, there are statutory requirements and field realities that the project has to be coordinated by a public agency.

While there are some concerns about the expertise, efficiency and exposure of our public sector officials, I believe that quality issues could be a problem both in public and private sectors. The standard solution to that is a rightly priced incentive mechanism guarded by accountability.

Two other major limitations are identified within the public sector. One is acquired, a hierarchical rather than a lateral management style in the public offices and the disabling environment arising out of that.

The other is the inherent bureaucratic struggle between different agencies initiated, initiated many a times with well-intentioned groups having competing priorities and understandings. While it is not practically possible to overcome these, the hierarchies could be minimized and the trade-offs could be turned into synergies with a co-coordinated planning.

To give a specific example, field workers might be allowed multiple reporting points even at the same level of hierarchy. This will serve two purposes; information flow won't have to stop for the absence of any single node.

At the same time, multiple back-up points for data storage and cross-validation will be established at lower additional costs. Added with a dynamic oversight and re-delegation as required, this structure can work as a contingency planning as well.

One might raise a valid question about the ultimate returns from such an attempt compared to the cost and the possibility of a looming failure considering the tight schedule. The answer to that question lies in the continuity, the way we can continue to multiply the benefits. If whatever is done is continued by the next administration, we are not losing anything.

Should we do it? I think we have to start it, we have to have enough Plan Bs, and we have to have realistic expectations.

Mohammad Irfan is a PhD candidate at the Graduate School of International Studies, University of Denver.