A big thank you to our client, World Vision, and to Yeva Avakyan, Head of Gender and Inclusion at World Vision USA, for inviting Project Balance to participate in the recent panel sessions at MERL Tech and InterAction.
We participated on the panels with World Vision colleagues Holta Trandafili, Program Quality Specialist and John Manda, Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Technical Advisor Zambia last week (September 6-8th). The sessions received a lot of great feedback and participation. Yeva and her team put together this impactful video about the prevalence of gender based violence in Zambia and how One Stop Centers provide needed services to women and men who experience violence in their lives. World Vision works in close collaboration with the Zambian government to roll out gender based violence support services.
The Zambian 2014 statistic are compelling:
37% experienced physical violence within the 12 months prior to the survey.
43% of women age 15-49 have experienced physical violence at least once since age 15
47% of ever-married women age 15-49 report ever having experienced physical, sexual, and/or emotional violence from their current or most recent partner
31% report having experienced such violence in the past 12 months.
Among ever-married women who had experienced IPV in the past 12 months, 43% reported experiencing physical injuries.
10% of women reported experiencing violence during pregnancy.
9% of women who have experienced violence have never sought help and never told anyone about the violence.
The drivers of GBV include:
Norms that teach women to accept and tolerate physical violence, and teach men that it is normal to beat his wife.
Extreme poverty, high levels of unemployment
Women’s extreme economic dependence on men
Socialization practices of boys and girls in schools and the community
Sexual cleansing practices
Belief that having sex with a child who is a virgin will cure HIV/AIDS
Initiation ceremonies that encourage young women to be submissive
Forced early & child marriage
An occasionally connected system was built that allows facilities to enter and save data as well as run reports locally and when there is an internet connection, the data automatically synchronizes to a central server where data from across all facilities is available for reporting.
A participant asked John how data collected was used and if technology positively impacted the program. John gave some concrete examples of how the data showed differences in the number of people receiving certain types of services between facilities and regions. The Zambian team asked “Why the differences?”. This led to analysis of processes which have been adjusted so that survivors can receive medical and psychological help as soon as possible. The technology allows trends to be identified earlier through automated reporting rather than having to hand calculate indicators at the end of each reporting period. As the technology provider, we were excited to hear that the GBVIMS is being actively implemented and program participants and managers are using the data for decision making. It’s wonderful to be part of such a passionate and professional team.
by Josh Mandell, a Director at DevResults where he leads strategy and business development. Josh can be reached at email@example.com.
While there is no way to guarantee that M&E software will solve all of your problems or make all of your colleagues happy, there absolutely are things you can do during the discovery, procurement, and contracts stages to mitigate against the risk of getting bamboozled.
#1 – Trust no one. Test everything.
Most development practitioners I speak with are balancing a heavy load of client work, internal programmatic and BD support, and other organization initiatives. I can appreciate that time is scarce and testing software you may not buy could feel like a giant waste of time.
However, when it comes to reducing uncertainty and building confidence in your decision, the single most productive use of your time is spent testing. When you don’t test, what evidence do you have to base your decision on? The vendor’s marketing and proposal materials. Don’t take the BD guy’s word for it and whatever you do, don’t trust screenshots, brochures, or proposals. Like a well-curated social media profile, marketing collateral gives you a sense for what’s possible, but probably isn’t the most accurate reflection of reality. If you really want to understand usability, performance, and culture fit, you simply need to see for yourself.
We have found that the organizations that take the time to identify and test what they’ll actually be doing in DevResults are much better off than those who buy based on what they see in documentation and presentations, or based on someone else’s recommendation.
And it makes our lives easier too! We may have to spend a little more time upfront in the discovery and procurement phases, but by properly setting expectations early on, we have to provide far less support over the long-term. This makes for smoother, lower-cost implementations and happier customers.
#2 – Document what success looks like in plain language.
We obviously need contracts for defining the scope of work, payment terms, SLA, and other legalese, but the reality is that the people leading procurement and contracts are often not the people leading the day to day data operations.
Contracts are also typically dense and hard to use as a point of reference for frequent, human communication. So, it’s incredibly important that the implementation leads themselves define what success looks like in their own words and that is what drives the implementation.
It took us years to figure this out, but we’ve taken the lesson to heart. What we do now with each of our engagements is create an Implementation Charter that documents, in the words of the implementation leads, things like a summary baseline, roles and responsibilities, and a list of desired outcomes, i.e. ‘what success looks like.’ We then use the charter as the primary point of reference for determining whether or not we’re doing a good job and we evaluate ourselves against the charter quarterly.
Similar to the point about testing above, we have found this practice to dramatically increase transparency, properly set expectations, and establish more effective channels for communication, all of which are crucial in enterprise software implementations.
#3 – Plan for the long-haul and create the right financial incentives. Spread out the payments.
Whether at the project or organizational levels, M&E software implementations are long-term efforts. Unlike custom, external-facing websites where the bulk of work is done up front and the rest is mostly maintenance, enterprise software is constantly evolving. Rapidly changing technology and industry trends, shifting user requirements, and quality user experience all require persistent attention and ongoing development.
Your contract and payment structure should reflect that reality.
The easiest way to achieve this alignment is to spread the payments out over time. I’m not going to get into the merits of a software as a service (SaaS) business model here (we’ll be putting another post out on that in the coming weeks), but suffice to say that you get better service when your technology partner needs to continuously earn your money month after month and year after year.
This not only shifts the focus from checking boxes in a contract to delivering actual utility for users over the long-term, but it also hedges against the prospect of paying for unused software (or even paying for vaporware, as in the case of the BMGF case against Saama).
We know from experience that shifting to a new way of doing things can be difficult. We used to be a custom-web development shop and we did pretty well in that old model. The transition to a SaaS offering was painful because we had to work harder to earn our money and expectations went up dramatically. Nonetheless, we know the pain has been worth it because our customers are holding us to a different standard and it’s forcing us to deliver the best product we’re capable of. As a result, we’ll not only have happier customers, but a stronger, more sustainable business doing what we love.
Stop the bamboozling.
If you have any tips or recommendations for buying software, please share those in the comments below, or feel free to reach out to me directly. We’re always looking to share what we know and learn from others. Good luck!
The session discussed the tension between the need for enterprise data management solutions that can be used across the entire organization and solutions that meet the needs of specific projects. The three of us presented our lessons learned on this topic from our respective roles as M&E advisor, M&E software provider, and programimplementer.
We then asked attendees to provide a list of their top do’s and don’ts related to their own experiences – and then reviewed the feedback to identify key themes.
Here’s a rundown on the themes that emerged from participants’ feedback:
Think of these as systems broadly—not M&E specific. For example: How do HR practices affect technology adoption? Does your organization have a federated structure that makes standard indicator development difficult? Do you require separate reporting for management and donor partners? These are all organizational systems that need to be properly considered before system selection and implementation. Top takeaways from the group include these insights to help you ensure your implementation goes smoothly:
1. Form Follows Function: This seems like an obvious theme, but since we received so much feedback about folks’ experiences, it bears repeating: define your goals and purpose first, then design a system to meet those, not the other way around. Don’t go looking for a solution that doesn’t address an existing problem. This means that if the ultimate goal for a system is to improve field staff data collection, don’t build a system to improve data visualization.
2. HR & Training: One of the areas our industry seems to struggle with is long-term capacity building and knowledge transfer around new systems. Suggestions in this theme were that training on information systems become embedded in standard HR processes with ongoing knowledge sharing and training of field staff, and putting a priority on hiring staff with adequate skill mixes to make use of information systems.
3. Right-Sized Deployment for Your Organization: There were a number of horror stories around organizations that tried to implement a single system simultaneously across all projects and failed because they bit off more than they could chew, or because the selected tool really didn’t meet a majority of their organization’s projects’ needs. The general consensus here was that small pilots, incremental roll-outs, and other learn-and-iterate approaches are a best practice. As one participant put it: Start small, scale slowly, iterate, and adapt.
We wanted to get feedback on best and worst practices around M&E system implementations specifically—how tools should be selected, necessary planning or analysis, etc.
4. Get Your M&E Right: Resoundingly, participants stressed that a critical component of implementing an M&E information system is having well-organized M&E, particularly indicators. We received a number of comments about creating standardized indicators first, auditing and reconciling existing indicators, and so on.
5. Diagnose Your Needs: Participants also chorused the need for effective diagnosis of the current state of M&E data and workflows and what the desired end-state is. Feedback in this theme focused on data, process, and tool audits and putting more tool-selection power in M&E experts’ hands rather than upper management or IT.
6. Scope It Out: One of the flaws each of us has seen in our respective roles is having too generalized or vague of a sense of why a given M&E tool is being implemented in the first place. All three of us talked about the need to define the problem and desired end state of an implementation. Participants’ feedback supported this stance. One of the key takeaways from this theme was to define who the M&E is actually for, and what purpose it’s serving: donors? Internal management? Local partner selection/management? Public accountability/marketing?
The first two categories are more about the how and why of system selection, roll-out, and implementation. This category is all about working to define and articulate what any type of system needs to be able to do.
7. UX Matters: It seems like a lot of folks have had experience with systems that aren’t particularly user-friendly. We received a lot of feedback about consulting users who actually have to use the system, building the tech around them rather than forcing them to adapt, and avoiding “clunkiness” in tool interfaces. This feels obvious but is, in fact, often hard to do in practice.
8. Keep It Simple, Stupid: This theme echoed the Right-Sized Deployment for Your Organization: take baby steps; keep things simple; prioritize the problems you want to solve; and don’t try to make a single tool solve all of them at once. We might add to this: many organizations have never had a successful information system implementation. Keeping the scope and focus tight at first and getting some wins on those roll-outs will help change internal perception of success and make it easier to implement broader, more elaborate changes long-term.
9. Failing to Plan Is Planning to Fail: The consensus in feedback was that it pays to take more time upfront to identify user/system needs and figure out which are required and which are nice to have. If interoperability with other tools or systems is a requirement, think about it from day one. Work directly with stakeholders at all levels to determine specs and needs; conduct internal readiness assessments to see what the actual needs are; and use this process to identify hierarchies of permissions and security.
Last, but not least, there’s how systems will be introduced and rolled out to users. We got the most feedback on this section and there was a lot of overlap with other sections. This seems to be the piece that organizations struggle with the most.
10. Get Buy-in/Identify Champions: Half the feedback we received on change management revolved around this theme. For implementations to be successful, you need both a top-down approach (buy-in from senior leadership) and a bottom-up approach (local champions/early adopters). To help facilitate this buy-in, participants suggested creating incentives (especially for management), giving local practitioners ownership, including programs and operations in the process, and not letting the IT department lead the initiative. The key here is that no matter which group the implementation ultimately benefits the most, having everyone on the same page understanding the implementation goals and why the organization needs it are key.
11. Communicate: Part of how you get buy-in is to communicate early and often. Communicate the rationale behind why tools were selected, what they’re good—and bad—at, what the value and benefits of the tool are, and transparency in the roll-out/what it hopes to achieve/progress towards those goals. Consider things like behavior change campaigns, brown bags, etc.
12. Shared Vision: This is a step beyond communication: merely telling people what’s going on is not enough. There must be a larger vision of what the tool/implementation is trying to achieve and this, particularly, needs to be articulated. How will it benefit each type of user? Shared vision can help overcome people’s natural tendencies to resist change, hold onto “their” data, or cover up failures or inconsistencies.
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!