5 Years of Information Management for Humanitarian Operations
Five years ago, I wrote an article for Humanitarian Exchange, published by the ODI Humanitarian Practice Network, entitled “Learning from Kosovo: the HCIC Year One.” It was the first thing I’d written about information management, and it was right at the start of my learning curve in this field.
I thought it would be interesting to update that article, and revisit some of the issues that it raised. So in the latest issue of Humanitarian Exchange, you’ll find another article, this time entitled “A Little Learning is a Dangerous Thing: five years of information management for humanitarian operations.”
I packed in more points than I probably should have, so it’s quite a dense piece, but it’s probably summed up by these two sentences:
Five years ago, I believed that better information management would enable better management overall. Yet it is hard to determine whether all this activity has actually improved the provision of humanitarian assistance, since there are no clear criteria for measuring their impact.
The good news includes more partnerships, sometimes between agencies, but also with the private sector; the bad news includes a lack of leadership in this area, particularly given the recent implementation of the cluster approach by the UN. The most important point I wanted to make, however, is one that I’ve mentioned before. I’m going to repeat it now, because it seems to me to be important enough:
We are public organisations, funded by public money, working for the public good. In the interests of accountability, all information that we gather in the course of our work should also be public. The only qualification that should be made to this is if that information might in any way endanger the safety or security of beneficiaries or staff. Without the free flow of information, the process of coordination is crippled, and we all must take responsibility for this.
So I guess that’s my new mantra.
Also interesting this month is an article by Jeremy Shoham of the . The article, “Information is a prerequisite, not a luxury“ expands on the importance of information management in the context of Food Security. Although he makes the case for what I would say is an overly ambitious system, the article is an excellent overview of some current thoughts in food security (along with a jab at the bias towards food aid, which thankfully is starting to diminish).
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Loved the posting.
One critic – the mantra is a little verbose.
How about -
I’m in a Public Org, using Public Money, working for Public good. I should share all Information, that does not endanger the beneficiaries.
James
21 Apr 06 at 18:48
Verbose is my middle name. Actually, it’s one of my 20 middle names. So I’ll accept your criticism, and cut it down to size!
I’ve had some positive feedback on the article, and I’ll be pushing the same message during the workshop in Seattle this week.
Paul Currion
23 Apr 06 at 13:47
Paul:
Great comments regarding the obligations to disclose data. Being deeply involved in the Medical world of best practices, TQM etc I slogged through a two decades of physician’s resistance to full disclosure in comparing outcomes. Now, particularly in invasive cardiology we are getting tremendous improvements due to forced disclosure in Lieu of being licensed. The fear of “too much to lose” and “they won’t understand our unique world” was a pervasive fear and obstacle for a long time.
I have recently attempted to begin a research project to contrast and compare operational standards in relief operations in order to examine which operational methods uses donor dollars most effectively, saves the most lives etc in an attempt to benchmark operations. Collecting data being the first step. I was told in no uncertain terms from some very reputable and world class organizational leaders that I would get zero cooperation in these matters. There is simply “too much for them to lose” by sharing information as it may risk their reputation and hence the economic base. It seems that, like the medical world, external requirements will likely be needed in order to have a Stock Exchange for NGO’s; with obviously vastly different metrics than classic corporations, but SOME metric that tells the source of dollars WHAT ARE THEY GETTING besides nice brochures, for their dollars and how does that compare with the performance of others. In such a world, consolidation and Darwinian drop out of incompetent organizations would be the result. The plethora of unaccountable, albeit well intended, organizations needs to be brought into a playing field where donors can hold these organizations accountable for both the victims and the donors and let the programs and careers of the incompetent, fall where they may.
Keep up your good deeds and hard work. Good luck at ECB
Don Bruce, MD
don bruce
25 Apr 06 at 0:18
[...] This all comes back to a point Paul Currion makes: Five years ago, I believed that better information management would enable better management overall. Yet it is hard to determine whether all this activity has actually improved the provision of humanitarian assistance, since there are no clear criteria for measuring their impact. [...]
ICT for Peacebuilding » Blog Archive » Technology for humanitarian aid - 6 mantras
30 Apr 06 at 6:48
Thanks for your thoughts Don – it’s definitely true that information and accountability are linked more closely than most agencies are prepared to admit – but we should look at accountability to the beneficiaries as much as (if not more than) to the donors. Fiscal accountability is vital, but at least there are existing reporting standards that donors hold us to, and the Good Humanitarian Donorship Initiative (http://www.goodhumanitariandonorship.org/) has started to address some of the gaps that remain. However we need to work harder on a responsible attitude towards our beneficiaries, which includes involving them in plans affecting their future – involvement which starts with better communication.
Paul Currion
4 May 06 at 3:49