Tag Archives: maturity models

MERL Tech Maturity Models

by Maliha Khan, a development practitioner in the fields of design, measurement, evaluation and learning. Maliha led the Maturity Model sessions at MERL Tech DC and Linda Raftree, independent consultant and lead organizer of MERL Tech.

MERL Tech is a platform for discussion, learning and collaboration around the intersection of digital technology and Monitoring, Evaluation, Research, and Learning (MERL) in the humanitarian and international development fields. The MERL Tech network is multidisciplinary and includes researchers, evaluators, development practitioners, aid workers, technology developers, data analysts and data scientists, funders, and other key stakeholders.

One key goal of the MERL Tech conference and platform is to bring people from diverse backgrounds and practices together to learn from each other and to coalesce MERL Tech into a more cohesive field in its own right — a field that draws from the experiences and expertise of these various disciplines. MERL Tech tends to bring together six broad communities:

  • traditional M&E practitioners, who are interested in technology as a tool to help them do their work faster and better;
  • development practitioners, who are running ICT4D programs and beginning to pay more attention to the digital data produced by these tools and platforms;
  • business development and strategy leads in organizations who want to focus more on impact and keep their organizations up to speed with the field;
  • tech people who are interested in the application of newly developed digital tools, platforms and services to the field of development, but may lack knowledge of the context and nuance of that application
  • data people, who are focused on data analytics, big data, and predictive analytics, but similarly may lack a full grasp of the intricacies of the development field
  • donors and funders who are interested in technology, impact measurement, and innovation.

Since our first series of Technology Salons on ICT and M&E in 2012 and the first MERL Tech conference in 2014, the aim has been to create stronger bridges between these diverse groups and encourage the formation of a new field with an identity of its own — In other words, to move people beyond identifying as, say, an “evaluator who sometimes uses technology,” and towards identifying as a member of the MERL Tech space (or field or discipline) with a clearer understanding of how these various elements work together and play off one another and how they influence (and are influenced by) the shifts and changes happening in the wider ecosystem of international development.

By building and strengthening these divergent interests and disciplines into a field of their own, we hope that the community of practitioners can begin to better understand their own internal competencies and what they, as a unified field, offered to international development. This is a challenging prospect, as beyond their shared use of technology to gather, analyze, and store data and an interest in better understanding how, when, why, where, (etc.) these tools work for MERL and for development/humanitarian programming, there aren’t many similarities between participants.

At the MERL Tech London and MERL Tech DC conferences in 2017, we made a concerted effort to get to the next level in the process of creating a field. In London in February, participants created a timeline of technology and MERL and identified key areas that the MERL Tech community could work on strengthening (such as data privacy and security frameworks and more technological tools for qualitative MERL efforts). At MERL Tech DC, we began trying to understand what a ‘maturity model’ for MERL Tech might look like.

What do we mean by a ‘maturity model’?

Broadly, maturity models seek to qualitatively assess people/culture, processes/structures, and objects/technology to craft a predictive path that an organization, field, or discipline can take in its development and improvement.

Initially, we considered constructing a “straw” maturity model for MERL Tech and presenting it at the conference. The idea was that our straw model’s potential flaws would spark debate and discussion among participants. In the end, however, we decided against this approach because (a) we were worried that our straw model would unduly influence people’s opinions, and (b) we were not very confident in our own ability to construct a good maturity model.

Instead, we opted to facilitate a creative space over three sessions to encourage discussion on what a maturity model might look like, and what it might contain. Our vision for these sessions was to get participants to brainstorm in mixed groups containing different types of people- we didn’t want small subsets of participants to create models independently without the input of others.

In the first session, “Developing a MERL Tech Maturity Model”, we invited participants to consider what a maturity model might look like. Could we begin to imagine a graphic model that would enable self-evaluation and allow informed choices about how to best develop competencies, change and adjust processes and align structures in organizations to optimize using technology for MERL or indeed other parts of the development field?

In the second session, “Where do you sit on the Maturity Model?” we asked participants to use the ideas that emerged from our brainstorm in the first session to consider their own organizations and work, and compare them against potential maturity models. We encouraged participants to assess themselves using green (young sapling) to yellow (somewhere in the middle) and red (mature MERL Tech ninja!) and to strike up a conversation with other people in the breaks on why they chose that color.

In our third session, “Something old, something new”, we consolidated and synthesized the various concepts participants had engaged with throughout the conference. Everyone was encouraged to reflect on their own learning, lessons for their work, and what new ideas or techniques they may have picked up on and might use in the future.

The Maturity Models

As can be expected, when over 300 people take marker and crayons to paper, many a creative model emerges. We asked the participants to gallery walk the models over the next day during the breaks and vote on their favorite models.

We won’t go into detail of what all the 24 the models showed, but there were some common themes that emerged from the ones that got the most votes – almost all maturity models include dimensions (elements, components) and stages, and a depiction of potential progression from early stages to later stages across each dimension. They all also showed who the key stakeholders or players were, and some had some details on what might be expected of them at different stages of maturity.

Two of the models (MERLvana and the Data Appreciation Maturity Model – DAMM) depicted the notion that reaching maturity was never really possible and the process was an almost infinite loop. As the presenters explained MERLvana “it’s an impossible to reach the ideal state, but one must keep striving for it, in ever closer and tighter loops with fewer and fewer gains!”

Data Appreciation Maturity Model

“MERL-tropolis” had clearly defined categories (universal understanding, learning culture and awareness, common principles, and programmatic strategy) and the structures/ buildings needed for those (staff, funding, tools, standard operating procedures, skills).


The most popular was “The Data Turnpike” which showed the route from the start of “Implementation with no data” to the finish line of “Technology, capacity and interest in data and adaptive management” with all the pitfalls along the way (misuse, not timely, low ethics etc) marked to warn of the dangers.

data turnpike
The Data Turnpike

As organizers of the session, we found the exercises both interesting and enlightening, and we hope they helped participants to begin thinking about their own MERL Tech practice in a more structured way. Participant feedback on the session was on polar extremes. Some people loved the exercise and felt that it allowed them to step back and think about how they and their organization were approaching MERL Tech and how they could move forward more systematically with building greater capacities and higher quality work. Some told us that they left with clear ideas on how they would work within their organizations to improve and enhance their MERL Tech practice, and that they had a better understanding of how to go about that. A few did not like that we had asked them to “sit around drawing pictures” and some others felt that the exercise was unclear and that we should have provided a model instead of asking people to create one. [Note: This is an ongoing challenge when bringing together so many types of participants from such diverse backgrounds and varied ways of thinking and approaching things!]

We’re curious if others have worked with “maturity models” and if they’ve been applied in this way or to the area of MERL Tech before. What do you think about the models we’ve shared? What is missing? How can we continue to think about this field and strengthen our theory and practice? What should we do at MERL Tech London in March 2018 and beyond to continue these conversations?

Maturity Models: Visualizing Progress Towards Next-Generation Transparency and Accountability

photo-sep-08-768x953By Alison Miranda (TAI) and Megan Colnar (Open Society Foundation). This is a cross-post of a piece published on September 17th on the Transparency and Accountability Initiative’s blog.

How can we assess progress on a second-generation way of working in the transparency, accountability and participation (TAP) field? Monitoring, evaluation, research, and learning (MERL) maturity models can provide some inspiration. The 2017 MERL Tech conference in Washington, DC was a two-day bonanza of lightening talks, plenary sessions, and hands-on workshops among participants who use technology for MERL.

Here are key conference takeaways from two MEL practitioners in the TAP field.

1. Making open data useful

Several MERL Tech sessions resonated deeply with the TAP field’s efforts to transition from fighting for transparent and open data towards linking open data to accountability and governance outcomes. Development Gateway and InterAction drew on findings from “Avoiding Data Graveyards” as we explored progress and challenges for International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) data use cases. While transparency is an important value, what is gained (or lost) in data use for collaboration when there are many different potential data consumers?

A partnership between Freedom House and DataKind is moving the Freedom in the World study towards a more transparent display of index sub-indicators, and building a more robust – and usable! – data set by reformatting and integrating their data and other secondary big data sets. What could such an initiative yield for the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI), for example, if equivalent data sets were available?

And finally, as TAP practitioners are keenly aware, power and politics can overshadow evidence in decision making. Another Development Gateway presentation reminded us that it is important to work with data producers and users to identify decisions that are (or can be) data-driven, and to recognize when other factors are driving decisions. (The incentives to supply open data is whole other can of worms!)

Drawing on our second-generation TAP approach, more work is needed for the TAP and MERL fields to move from “open data everywhere, all of the time” to planning for, and encouraging more effective data use.

2. Tech for MERL for improved policy, practice, and outcomes

Among our favorite moments at MERL Tech was when Dobility Founder and CEO Christopher Robert remarked that “the most interesting innovations at MERL Tech aren’t the new, cutting-edge technology developments, but generic technology applied in innovative ways.” Unsurprising for a tech company focused on using affordable technology to enable quality data collection for social impact, but a refreshing reminder amidst the talk of ‘AI’, ‘chatbots’, and ‘blockchains’ for development coursing through the conference.

The TAP field is certainly not a stranger to employing technology from apps to curb trade corruption in Nigeria to Citizen Helpdesks in Nepal, Liberia, and Mali to crowdsourced political campaign expenditure monitoring in Bolivia, but our second-generation TAP insights remind us technology tools are not an end in themselves. MERL and technology are our means for collecting effective data, generating important insights and learning, building larger movements, and gathering context-specific evidence on transparency and accountability.

We are undoubtedly on the precipice of revolutionary technological advancements that can be readily (and maybe even affordably) deployed[1] to solve complex global challenges, but they will still be tools and not solutions.

3. Balancing inclusion and participation with efficiency and accuracy

We explored a constant conundrum for MERL: how to balance inclusion and participation with efficiency and accuracy. Girl Effect and Praekelt Foundation took “mixed methods” research to another level, combining online and offline efforts to understand user needs of adolescent girls and to support user-developed digital media content. Their iterative process showcased an effective way to integrate tech into the balancing act of inclusive – and holistic – design, paired with real-time data use.

This session on technology in citizen generated data brought to light two case studies of how tech can both help and hinder this balancing act. The World Café discussions underscored the importance of planning for – and recognizing the constraints on – feedback loops. And provided us a helpful reminder that MERL and tech professionals are often considering different “end users” in their design work!

So, which is it – balancing act or zero-sum game between inclusion and efficiency? The MERL community has long applied participatory methods. And tech solutions abound that can help with efficiency, accuracy, and inclusion. Indeed, the second-generation TAP focus on learning and collaboration is grounded in effective data use – but there are many potential “end users” to consider. These principles and practices can force uncomfortable compromises – particularly in the face of finite resources and limited data availability – but they are not at odds with each other. Perhaps the MERL and TAP communities can draw lessons from each other in striking the right balance.

4. Tech sees no development sector silos

One of the things that makes MERL Tech such an exciting conference, is the deliberate mixing of tech nerds with MERL nerds. It’s pretty unique in its dual targeting of both types of professionals who share a common purpose of social impact (where as conferences like ICT4D cast a wider net looking at application of technology to broader development issues). And, though we MERL professionals like to think of design and iteration as squarely within our wheelhouse, being in a room full of tech experts can quickly remind you that our adaptation game has a lot of room to grow. We talk about user-centered design in TAP, but when the tech crowd was asked in plenary “would you even think of designing software or an app without knowing who was going to use it?” they responded with a loud and exuberant laugh.

Tech has long employed systematic approaches to user-centered design, prototyping, iteration, and adaptation, all of which can offer compelling lessons to guide MERL practices and methods. Though we know Context is King, it is exhilarating to know that the tech specialists assembled at the conference work across traditional silos of development work (from health to corruption, and everything in between). End users are, of course, crucial to the final product but the life cycle process and steps follow a regular pattern, regardless of the topic area or users.

The second-generation wave in TAP similarly moved away from project-specific, fragmented, or siloed planning and learning towards a focus on collective approaches and long-term, more organic engagement.

American Evaluation Association President, Kathy Newcomer, quipped that maybe an ‘Academy Awards for Adaptation’ could inspire better informed and more adept evolutions to strategy as circumstances and context shift around us. Adding to this, and borrowing from the tech community, we wonder where we can build more room to beta test, follow real demand, and fail fast. Are we looking towards other sectors and industries enough or continuing to reinvent the wheel?

Alison left thinking:

  • Concepts and practices are colliding across the overlapping MERL, tech, and TAP worlds! In leading the Transparency and Accountability Initiative’s learning strategy, and supporting our work on data use for accountability, I often find myself toggling between different meanings of ‘data’, ‘data users’, and tech applications that can enable both of these themes in our strategy. These worlds don’t have to be compatible all the time, and concepts don’t have to compute immediately (I am personally still working out hypothetical blockchain applications for my MERL work!). But this collision of worlds is a helpful reminder that there are many perspectives to draw from in tackling accountable governance outcomes.
  • Maturity models come in all shapes and sizes, as we saw in the creative depictions created at MERL Tech that included, steps, arrows, paths, circles, cycles, and carrots! And the transparency and accountability field is collectively pursuing a next generation of more effective practice that will take unique turns for different accountability actors and outcomes. Regardless of what our organizational or programmatic models look like, MERL Tech reminded me that champions of continuous improvement are needed at all stages of the model – in MERL, in tech for development, and in the TAP field.

Megan left thinking:

  • That I am beginning to feel like I’m a Dr. Seuss book. We talked ‘big data’, ‘small data’, ‘lean data’, and ‘thick data’. Such jargon-filled conversations can be useful for communicating complex concepts simply with others. Ah, but this is also the problem. This shorthand glosses over the nuances that explain what we actually mean. Jargon is also exclusive—it clearly defines the limits of your community and makes it difficult for newcomers. In TAP, I can’t help but see missed opportunities for connecting our work to other development sectors. How can health outcomes improve without holding governments and service providers accountable for delivering quality healthcare? How can smallholder farmers expect better prices without governments budgeting for and building better roads? Jargon is helpful until it divides us up. We have collective, global problems and we need to figure out how to talk to each other if we’re going to solve them.
  • In general, I’m observing a trend towards organic, participatory, and inclusive processes—in MERL, in TAP, and across the board in development and governance work. This is, almost universally speaking, a good thing. In MERL, a lot of this movement is a backlash to randomistas and imposing The RCT Gold Standard to social impact work. And, while I confess to being overjoyed that the “RCT-or-bust” mindset is fading out, I can’t help but think we’re on a slippery slope. We need scientific rigor, validation, and objective evidence. There has to be a line between ‘asking some good questions’ and ‘conducting an evaluation’. Collectively, we are working to eradicate unjust systems and eliminate poverty, and these issues require not just our best efforts and intentions, but workable solutions. Listen to Freakonomic’s recent podcast When Helping Hurts and commit with me to find ways to keep participatory and inclusive evaluation techniques rigorous and scientific, too.

[1] https://channels.theinnovationenterprise.com/articles/ai-in-developing-countries