Nikola Tesla, the inventor of the AC power system which proved so much superior to Edison's, was very well educated - a graduate engineer with a lot of experience - however his invention was successfully commercialised not by himself, but by George Westinghouse - another machine shop apprentice who had used his skill to develop a braking system for railway trains, and a successful business from it. Another who had just high school - but received a solid education in mathematics and physics from the army - founded the European Siemens Electric Company. The Hewlett Packard Company was founded and run by two graduate engineers.
Inventions show the same mix - of the two men credited separately with the commutated electric motor - one was a blacksmith and the other a journeyman bookbinder. The much-improved AC induction motor came later from Tesla - an engineering graduate. Of the two key inventers in steam engines - one was an ironmonger the other an instrument maker.
All these companies rely on well-educated personnel to function - but they were actually not all created as business entities by higher education. Expecting therefore African graduates to produce "new things" is perhaps a little unreasonable. Engineering graduates tend to improve things and solve problems with existing things - if an engineering graduate has no industry to join after graduating - there is no rule that says he should be able to create one.
It is however equally true that no society can expect to develop and grow its industry without higher education and engineering graduates - so the question becomes simply one of how does industrialisation start.
Borrowing, and paraphrasing, an observation from one Jeremy Weate
The more you look at Africa - the more you realize that technological interventions or money pumped in by donors will do little to transform anything, unless there is a primary focus on business processes… Africans enjoy the benefits of cars, laptops, mobile phones and other modern technology, but live in a society which does not understand the discipline and rigour it takes to produce such technology. This creates an alienated culture where technology and modern industrial processes are seen as a mystery. No one seems to be able to create value-added manufacturing processes; no one seems to stem the tide of an import economy, turning it into an export economy. So few technological interventions (in any sector) meet with any kind of success.
Truly intellectually curious, technologically innovative and self-sustaining societies cannot be built off a bedrock of reactive thinking coupled with disinterest and indolence. The challenge is to disrupt these ossified ways of thought and catalyse the forces of creativity.
That is a true enough observation and makes the key point - "a primary focus on business process" - accept that - then the problem just becomes one of defining precisely what business process actually is. What is the process whereby innovators and opportunists can create value added manufacturing processes.... and how does a society learn the discipline and rigour involved in producing technology-based product and economic growth.
And, perhaps most importantly, can this happen without introducing "Taylorism" which in its purest form imposes the skills of the few on "unquestioning masses" in order to eventually benefit everybody.
The Role of Women