Tag Archives: technology

M&E Squared: Evaluating M&E Technologies

by Roger Nathanial Ashby, Co-Founder & Principal Consultant, OpenWise

The universe of MERL Tech solutions has grown exponentially. In 2008 monitoring and evaluating tech within global development could mostly be confined to mobile data collection tools like Open Data Kit (ODK), and Excel spreadsheets to analyze and visualize survey data. In the intervening decade a myriad of tools, companies and NGOs have been created to advance the efficiency and effectiveness of monitoring, evaluation, research and learning (MERL) through the use of technology. Whether it’s M&E platforms or suites, satellite imagery, remote sensors, or chatbots, new innovations are being deployed every day in the field.

However, how do we evaluate the impact when MERL Tech is the intervention itself? That was the question and task put to participants of the “M&E Squared” workshop at MERL Tech 2017.

Workshop participants were separated into three groups that were each given a case study to discuss and analyze. One group was given a case about improving the learning efficiency of health workers in Liberia through the mHero Health Information System (HIS). The system was deployed as a possible remedy to some of the information communication challenges identified during the 2014 West African Ebola outbreak. A second group was given a case about the use of RapidPro to remind women to attend antenatal care (ANC) for preventive malaria medicine in Guinea. The USAID StopPalu project goal was to improve the health of infants by increasing the percent of women attending ANC visits. The final group was given a case about using remote images to assist East African pastoralists. The Satellite Assisted Pastoral Resource Management System (SAPARM) informs pastoralists of vegetation through remote sensing imagery so they can make better decisions about migrating their livestock.

After familiarizing ourselves with the particulars of the case studies, each group was tasked to present their findings to all participants after pondering a series of questions. Some of the issues under discussion included

(1) “How would you assess your MERL Tech’s relevance?”

(2) “How would you evaluate the effectiveness of your MERL Tech?”

(3) “How would you measure efficiency?” and

(4) “How will you access sustainability?”.

Each group came up with some innovative answers to the questions posed and our facilitators and session leads (Alexandra Robinson & Sutyajeet Soneja from USAID and Molly Chen from RTI) will soon synthesize the workshop findings and notes into a concise written brief for the MERL Tech community.

Before the workshop closed we were all introduced to the great work done by SIMLab (Social Impact Lab) in this area through their SIMLab Monitoring and Evaluation Framework. The framework identifies key criteria for evaluating M&E including:

  1. Relevance – The extent to which the technology choice is appropriately suited to the priorities and capacities of the context of the target group or organization.
  2. Effectiveness – A measure of the extent to which an information and communication channel, technology tool, technology platform, or a combination of these attains its objectives.
  3. Efficiency – Measure of the outputs (qualitative and quantitative) in relation to the inputs.
  4. Impact – The positive and negative changed produced by technology introduction, change in a technology tool, or platform on the overall development intervention (directly or indirectly; intended or unintended).
  5. Sustainability – Measure of whether the benefits of a technology tool or platform are likely to continue after donor funding has been withdrawn.
  6. Coherence – How related is the technology to the broader policy context (development, market, communication networks, data standards & interoperability mandates, and national & international law) within which the technology was developed and implemented.

While it’s unfortunate that SIMLab stopped most operations in early September 2017, their exceptional work in this and other areas lives on and you can access the full framework here.

I learned a great deal in this session from the facilitators and my colleagues attending the workshop. I would encourage everyone in the MERL Tech community to take the ideas generated during this workshop and the great work done by SIMLab into their development practice. We certainly intend to integrate much of these insights into our work at OpenWise. Read more about “The Evidence Agenda” here on SIMLab’s blog. 

 

 

 

Data quality in the age of lean data

by Daniel Ramirez-Raftree, MERL Tech support team.

Evolving data collection methods call for evolving quality assurance methods. In their session titled Data Quality in the Age of Lean Data, Sam Schueth of Intermedia, Woubedle Alemayehu of Oxford Policy Management, Julie Peachey of the Progress out of Poverty Index, and Christina Villella of MEASURE Evaluation discussed problems, solutions, and ethics related to digital data collection methods. [Bios and background materials here]

Sam opened the conversation by comparing the quality assurance and control challenges in paper assisted personal interviewing (PAPI) to those in digital assisted personal interviewing (DAPI). Across both methods, the fundamental problem is that the data that is delivered is a black box. It comes in, it’s turned into numbers and it’s disseminated, but in this process alone there is no easily apparent information about what actually happened on the ground.

During the age of PAPI, this was dealt with by sending independent quality control teams to the field to review the paper questionnaire that was administered and perform spot checks by visiting random homes to validate data accuracy. Under DAPI, the quality control process becomes remote. Survey administrators can now schedule survey sessions to be recorded automatically and without the interviewer’s knowledge, thus effectively gathering a random sample of interviews that can give them a sense of how well the sessions were conducted. Additionally, it is now possible to use GPS to track the interviewers’ movements and verify the range of households visited. The key point here is that with some creativity, new technological capacities can be used to ensure higher data quality.

Woubedle presented next and elaborated on the theme of quality control for DAPI. She brought up the point that data quality checks can be automated, but that this requires pre-survey-implementation decisions about what indicators to monitor and how to manage the data. The amount of work that is put into programming this upfront design has a direct relationship on the ultimate data quality.

One useful tool is a progress indicator. Here, one collects information on trends such as the number of surveys attempted compared to those completed. Processing this data could lead to further questions about whether there is a pattern in the populations that did or did not complete the survey, thus alerting researchers to potential bias. Additionally, one can calculate the average time taken to complete a survey and use it to identify outliers that took too little or too long to finish. Another good practice is to embed consistency checks in the survey itself; for example, making certain questions required or including two questions that, if answered in a particular way, would be logically contradictory, thus signaling a problem in either the question design or the survey responses. One more practice could be to apply constraints to the survey, depending on the households one is working with.

After this discussion, Julie spoke about research that was done to assess the quality of different methods for measuring the Progress out of Poverty Index (PPI). She began by explaining that the PPI is a household level poverty measurement tool unique to each country. To create it, the answers to 10 questions about a household’s characteristics and asset ownership are scored to compute the likelihood that the household is living below the poverty line. It is a simple, yet effective method to evaluate household level poverty. The research project Julie described set out to determine if the process of collecting data to create the PPI could be made less expensive by using SMS, IVR or phone calls.

Grameen Foundation conducted the study and tested four survey methods for gathering data: 1) in-person and at home, 2) in-person and away from home, 3) in-person and over the phone, and 4) automated and over the phone. Further, it randomized key aspects of the study, including the interview method and the enumerator.

Ultimately, Grameen Foundation determined that the interview method does affect completion rates, responses to questions, and the resulting estimated poverty rates. However, the differences in estimated poverty rates was likely not due to the method itself, but rather to completion rates (which were affected by the method). Thus, as long as completion rates don’t differ significantly, neither will the results. Given that the in-person at home and in-person away from home surveys had similar completion rates (84% and 91% respectively), either could be feasibly used with little deviation in output. On the other hand, in-person over the phone surveys had a 60% completion rate and automated over the phone surveys had a 12% completion rate, making both methods fairly problematic. And with this understanding, developers of the PPI have an evidence-based sense of the quality of their data.

This case study illustrates the the possibility of testing data quality before any changes are made to collection methods, which is a powerful strategy for minimizing the use of low quality data.

Christina closed the session with a presentation on ethics in data collection. She spoke about digital health data ethics in particular, which is the intersection of public health ethics, clinical ethics, and information systems security. She grounded her discussion in MEASURE Evaluation’s experience thinking through ethical problems, which include: the vulnerability of devices where data is collected and stored, the privacy and confidentiality of the data on these devices, the effect of interoperability on privacy, data loss if the device is damaged, and the possibility of wastefully collecting unnecessary data.

To explore these issues, MEASURE conducted a landscape assessment in Kenya and Tanzania and analyzed peer reviewed research to identify key themes for ethics. Five themes emerged: 1) legal frameworks and the need for laws, 2) institutional structures to oversee implementation and enforcement, 3) information systems security knowledge (especially for countries that may not have the expertise), 4) knowledge of the context and users (are clients comfortable with their data being used?), and 5) incorporating tools and standard operating procedures.

Based in this framework, MEASURE has made progress towards rolling out tools that can help institute a stronger ethics infrastructure. They’ve been developing guidelines that countries can use to develop policies, building health informatic capacity through a university course, and working with countries to strengthen their health information systems governance structures.

Finally, Christina explained her take on how ethics are related to data quality. In her view, it comes down to trust. If a device is lost, this may lead to incomplete data. If the clients are mistrustful, this could lead to inaccurate data. If a health worker is unable to check or clean data, this could create a lack of confidence. Each of these risks can lead to the erosion of data integrity.

Register for MERL Tech London, March 19-20th 2018! Session ideas due November 10th.

Six priorities for the MERL Tech community

by Linda Raftree, MERL Tech Co-organizer

IMG_4636Participants at the London MERL Tech conference in February 2017 crowdsourced a MERL Tech History timeline (which I’ve shared in this post). Building on that, we projected out our hopes for a bright MERL Tech Future. Then we prioritized our top goals as a group (see below). We’ll aim to continue building on these as a sector going forward and would love more thoughts on them.

  1. Figure out how to be responsible with digital data and not put people, communities, vulnerable groups at risk. Subtopics included: share data with others responsibly without harming anyone; agree minimum ethical standard for MERL and data collection; agree principles for minimizing data we collect so that only essential data is captured, develop duty of care principles for MERL Tech and digital data; develop ethical data practices and policies at organization levels; shift the power balance so that digital data convenience costs are paid by orgs, not affected populations; develop a set of quality standards for evaluation using tech
  2. Increase data literacy across the sector, at individual level and within the various communities where we are working.
  3. Overcome the extraction challenge and move towards true downward accountability. Do good user/human centered design and planning together, be ‘leaner’ and more user-focused at all stages of planning and MERL. Subtopics included: development of more participatory MERL methods; bringing consensus decision-making to participatory MERL; realizing the potential of tech to shift power and knowledge hierarchies; greater use of appreciative inquiry in participatory MERL; more relevant use of tech in MERL — less data, more empowering, less extractive, more used.
  4. Integrate MERL into our daily opfor blogerations to avoid the thinking that it is something ‘separate;’ move it to the core of operations management and make sure we have the necessary funds to do so; demystify it and make it normal! Subtopics included that: we’ve stopped calling “MERL” a “thing” and the norm is to talk about monitoring as part of operations; data use is enabling real-time coordination; no more paper based surveys.
  5. Improve coordination and interoperability as related to data and tools, both between organizations and within organizations. Subtopics included: more interoperability; more data-sharing platforms; all data with suitable anonymization is open; universal exchange of machine readable M&E Data (e.g., standards? IATI? a platform?); sector-wide IATI compliance; tech solutions that enable sharing of qualitative and quantitative data; systems of use across agencies; e.g., to refer feedback; coordination; organizations sharing more data; interoperability of tools. It was emphasized that donors should incentivize this and ensure that there are resources to manage it.
  6. Enhance user-driven and accessible tech that supports impact and increases efficiency, that is open source and can be built on, and that allows for interoperability and consistent systems of measurement and evaluation approaches.

In order to move on these priorities, participants felt we needed better coordination and sharing of tools and lessons among the NGO community. This could be through a platform where different innovations and tools are appropriately documented so that donors and organizations can more easily find good practice, useful tools and get a sense of ‘what’s out there’ and what it’s being used for. This might help us to focus on implementing what is working where, when, why and how in M&E (based on a particular kind of context) rather than re-inventing the wheel and endlessly pushing for new tools.

Participants also wanted to see MERL Tech as a community that is collaborating to shape the field and to ensure that we are a sector that listens, learns, and adopts good practices. They suggested hosting MERL Tech events and conferences in ‘the South;’ and building out the MERL Tech community to include greater representation of users and developers in order to achieve optimal tools and management processes.

What do you think – have we covered it all? What’s missing?

We have a data problem

by Emily Tomkys, ICT in Programmes at Oxfam GB

Following my presentation at MERL Tech, I have realised that it’s not only Oxfam who have a data problem; many of us have a data problem. In the humanitarian and development space, we collect a lot of data – whether via mobile phone or a paper process, the amount of data each project generates is staggering. Some of this data goes into our MIS (Management Information Systems), but all too often data remains in Excel spreadsheets on computer hard drives, unconnected cloud storage systems or Access and bespoke databases.

(Watch Emily’s MERL Tech London Lightning Talk!)

This is an issue because the majority of our programme data is analysed in silos on a survey-to-survey basis and at best on a project-to-project basis. What about when we want to analyse data between projects, between countries, or even globally? It would currently take a lot of time and resources to bring data together in usable formats. Furthermore, issues of data security, limited support for country teams, data standards and the cost of systems or support mean there is a sustainability problem that is in many people’s interests to solve.

The demand from Oxfam’s country teams is high – one of the most common requests the ICT in Programme Team receive centres around databases and data analytics. Teams want to be able to store and analyse their data easily and safely; and there is growing demand for cross border analytics. Our humanitarian managers want to see statistics on the type of feedback we receive globally. Our livelihoods team wants to be able to monitor prices at markets on a national and regional scale. So this motivated us to look for a data solution but it’s something we know we can’t take on alone.

That’s why MERL Tech represented a great opportunity to check in with other peers about potential solutions and areas for collaboration. For now, our proposal is to design a data hub where no matter what the type of data (unstructured, semi-structured or structured) and no matter how we collect the data (mobile data collection tools or on paper), our data can integrate into a database. This isn’t about creating new tools – rather it’s about focusing on the interoperability and smooth transition between tools and storage options.  We plan to set this up so data can be pulled through into a reporting layer which may have a mixture of options for quantitative analysis, qualitative analysis and GIS mapping. We also know we need to give our micro-programme data a home and put everything in one place regardless of its source or format and make it easy to pull it through for analysis.

In this way we can explore data holistically, spot trends on a wider scale and really know more about our programmes and act accordingly. Not only should this reduce our cost of analysis, we will be able to analyse our data more efficiently and effectively. Moreover, taking a holistic view of the data life cycle will enable us to do data protection by design and it will be easier to support because the process and the tools being used will be streamlined. We know that one tool does not and cannot do everything we require when we work in such vast contexts, so a challenge will be how to streamline at the same time as factoring in contextual nuances.

Sounds easy, right? We will be starting to explore our options and working on the datahub in the coming months. MERL Tech was a great start to make connections, but we are keen to hear from others about how you are approaching “the data problem” and eager to set something up which can also be used by other actors. So please add your thoughts in the comments or get in touch if you have ideas!

Dropping down your ignorance ratio: Campaigns meet KNIME

by Rodrigo Barahona (Oxfam Intermon, @rbarahona77) and Enrique Rodriguez (Consultant, @datanauta)

A few year ago, we ran a Campaign targeting the Guatemalan Government, which generated a good deal of global public support (100,000 signatures, online activism, etc.). This, combined with other advocacy strategies, finally pushed change to happen. We did an evaluation in order to learn from such a success and found a key area where there was little to learn because we were unable to get and analyze the information:  we knew almost nothing about which online channels drove traffic to the online petition and which had better conversion rates. We didn’t know the source of more than 80% of our signatures, so we couldn’t establish recommendations for future similar actions

Building on the philosophy underneath Vanity Metrics, we started developing a system to evaluate public engagement as part of advocacy campaigns and spike actions. We wanted to improve our knowledge on what works and what doesn’t on mobilizing citizens to take action (mostly signing petitions or other online action), and which were the most effective channels in terms of generating traffic and converting petitions. So we started implementing a relatively simple Google Analytics Tracking system that helped us determine the source of the visit/signatures, establish conversion rates, etc. The only caveat was that it was time consuming — the extraction of the information and its analysis was mostly manual.

Later on, we were asked to implement the methodology on a complex campaign that had 3 landing/petition pages, 3 exit pages, and all this in two different languages. Our preliminary analysis was that it would take us up to 8-10 hours of work, with high risk of mistakes as it needed cross analysis of up to 12 pages, and required distinguishing among more than 15 different sources for each page.

But then we met KNIME: an Information Miner tool that helped us to extract different sets of data from Google analytics (through plugins), create the data flow in a visual way and automatically execute part of the analysis. So far, we have automated the capture and analysis of statistics of web traffic (Google Analytics), the community of users on Twitter and the relevance of posts in that social network. We’ve been able to minimize the risk of errors, focus on the definition of new indicators and visualizations and provide reports to draw conclusions and design new communication strategies (based on data) in a very short period of time.

KNIME helped us to scale up our evaluation system, making it suitable for very complex campaigns, with a significant reduction of time dedication and also lowering the risk of mistakes. And most important of all, introducing KNIME into our system has dropped down our ignorance ratio significantly, because nowadays we can identify the source of more than 95% of the signatures. This means that we can shed light on how different strategies are working, which channels are bringing more visits to the different landing pages, and which have the higher conversion rate. All this is relevant information to inform decisions and adapt strategies and improve the outputs of a campaign.

Watch Rodrigo’s MERL Tech Lightning Talk here!