Alex: Thanks so much for that introduction, Fay. Today, we are going to look at organizational dynamics because it is really important if you assume that most of us here are M&E practitioners in some way or care about M&E in an organization. If you want your organization to get better at M&E, then technology and processes are important, but learning how to bring that change to an organization is also essential. We are going to reflect on some of the dynamics we have seen working with different types of organizations and share what works well.
I want to start off by talking about centralized versus decentralized organizations and some of the challenges that come along with those. Then, we will look at two different pathways to building change and improving M&E at an organizational level that we have seen work. We are also going to spend some time looking at ActivityInfo, the technology itself, and how it fits into the M&E puzzle. If we have time at the end, we will talk a little bit about the Capability Maturity Model and how that can help plan the processes and next steps within your organization.

00:00:04 Centralized vs. Decentralized Organizations

Alex: Brendan, what do you think when you hear "centralized versus decentralized organizations"? Does that say something to you based on the organizations you have worked with?

Brendan: There are different dimensions to how I think about centralized versus decentralized. I think of the tension between top-down approaches—where there is a high degree of standardization pushed down geographically through regional or country offices—versus the freedom and independence of project-based or country-based approaches. It is about the tension between getting the pros out of both of those. It could also be something as simple as funding structures, where you might have decentralized funding and projects versus more top-down institutional funding.

Alex: Funding is a big driver. You can see this in different organizations; some have clear leadership where someone can dictate how M&E is done, while others feel they lack the authority to tell country offices what to do. This can be challenging, especially in a decentralized organization where sectoral experts in headquarters may not have the authority to enforce standards.

In a centralized organization, lines of communication might be long. For example, coordinating between Burkina Faso and Nigeria might require going through regional offices in Dakar and Lagos, or even Geneva. However, an advantage of a decentralized organization is that lines of communication tend to be denser. It might be easier for someone in Burkina Faso to contact someone in Nigeria directly to share knowledge.

Sociologically, organizations develop in response to the complexity of their environment. If the environment is stable, centralized organizations are effective and efficient at replicating standardized programs. However, in the humanitarian space, the constantly changing environment—whether due to events on the ground or funding crises—requires a decentralized approach to manage local challenges effectively.

00:02:08 Two Pathways to Change: Bottom-Up vs. Top-Down

Alex: I have seen two different paths that seem to be effective in decentralized organizations. One is bottom-up, starting at the field level and working your way out like an inkblot. You start with one country, get a good process and system down, and then reproduce that in other countries until you have the momentum to standardize across the organization.

The other approach is top-down, but on a lighter level. You can't always impose things in decentralized organizations, but if you start with something simple—like identifying six key indicators—that is manageable. You can use that as a basis to build on.

00:12:49 The Bottom-Up Approach (Project Level)

Alex: Let’s look at the bottom-up pattern: starting at project-level M&E and focusing on primary data like beneficiary registers and baseline surveys. This helps set clear guidelines and expectations for project M&E across your organization. While I am a technology provider and biased, I do think standardizing on a common technology is important.

A harmonized project-level M&E system involves collecting data, defining processes for analysis, selecting technology, and budgeting for resources (people, software, IT). By harmonizing, you ensure you have a roadmap for every project: MEAL plan, data model, database design, testing, and migration. This allows you to have a system up and running within the first month or two of a project.

00:15:01 Introduction to ActivityInfo

Brendan: BeDataDriven is the company that builds ActivityInfo. Our mission is to help organizations be better at what they do through better use of data. ActivityInfo is information management software tailored to the humanitarian development sector, designed to cover the complete data life cycle. Instead of using separate tools for data collection, spreadsheets for databases, and another tool for analysis, we offer one solution.

We support workflows around data collection and entry through an offline-capable web and mobile application with two-way synchronization. We have a powerful expression language for validation and tools to help resolve data errors. Once we have a well-managed data set, we have tools to help aggregate, analyze, and disseminate that information.

00:18:33 Demo: The Template/Inkblot Approach

Alex: I want to take you through the bottom-up approach using ActivityInfo. We have general templates on our website, but it is often effective to develop your own templates specific to your sector, like agriculture. Once you have that template, the next country can use it as a starting point. ActivityInfo is engineered based on templates rather than a hard-coded app because every project may be different.

For example, in an agricultural program database, you might have lists for individuals and farms. If you expand from Niger to Cameroon, you can easily add fields specific to the new context, such as language spoken. If you add a cash component, you can create a new cash distribution form and link it to the existing farm data.

Alex: You can then bring data in through the form, import it from a spreadsheet, or use our mobile app. You can download the database offline and take it to the field. Field workers can collect or verify data on the spot.

When you get back to the web app, you have a real-time dashboard where you can track activities and indicators over time. This allows you to make this part of your standard M&E process while remaining flexible enough to adapt to different contexts.

00:25:27 The Top-Down Approach (Global Indicators)

Brendan: Now let’s look at a top-down approach. Even here, we want to allow for flexibility. We care about specific global or strategic indicators at HQ, but we understand each project is different and needs flexibility for operational reporting.

In this example, we have a dashboard acting as a synopsis of global programs. We track project status, breakdown by theme (civil society, environmental), budget, and strategic indicators—specifically, the number of beneficiaries reached regardless of project type.

Brendan: In the database view, we have a table of projects with statuses, codes, and budgets. We leverage the relational model to attach logical frameworks (log frames) as sub-forms to these projects. We can also do monthly reporting directly in this form.

Imagine an HQ scenario where a project gets funding approved. The status is updated to "implementing." A project manager, who only has access to their specific project via role-based permissions, logs in. They can import their specific logical framework and indicators from a spreadsheet. Importantly, they can map their project-specific indicators (e.g., households connected to solar grids) to the global strategic indicator (direct beneficiaries). This allows the global dashboard to update automatically while the project tracks its specific data.

00:33:51 Best Practices for Spreading Systems

Alex: Regardless of whether you start bottom-up or top-down, there are best practices for spreading these systems. Staff exchanges are underutilized but very effective; sending someone to a different country to help start a project spreads knowledge. Regional workshops and communities of practice—whether virtual or in-person—are great forums for communication. If you don't have these spaces, think about how to get them started.

00:40:59 Capability Maturity Model

Alex: Once you have a system harmonized, the Capability Maturity Model is a useful lens to think about next steps. Organizations often stop at the "repeatable" or "defined" stage. To get extra value and move toward "optimized," you need things like an executive sponsor, alignment with organizational strategy, and investment in a team responsible for optimization.
The current context of funding cuts can actually drive harmonization as organizations seek to cut duplicative costs by centralizing on one system rather than maintaining multiple different technologies.

00:43:03 Poll Results

Alex: Looking at the poll results, a little more than half of you describe your organizations as very or somewhat centralized. Most people fall into "somewhat harmonization," meaning there is some guidance in M&E systems. About a quarter said there is no harmonization, and every project does its own thing.

00:46:00 Q&A Session

Bernardo (Mozambique): We are implementing a project related to sexual reproductive health as part of a consortium. We use a model called "Champions of Change." We do annual data collections measuring indicators like the percentage of girls accessing health facilities. We use Power BI to measure indicators from pre and post-tests to see changes in knowledge. My organization is committed to the well-being of children regarding sexual health.

Alex: That’s terrific.

Henry: Is there a method to aggregate data across databases and reference them to "basket indicators"? We want to pull data from all different databases into one place for institutional reporting. Also, can we combine specific project indicators (e.g., jobs created vs. livelihoods training) into a single basket indicator automatically?

Alex: Yes. If you want a live view, you can use calculated measures. You can join or union tables together—for example, taking all participants from different training activities and doing a distinct count to find the unique number of people reached across all activities. Alternatively, you can have a setup where data is validated and signed off by a country manager before being entered into a global form.

Mehmet: With ActivityInfo, are we able to do some coding, or is it just drag-and-drop?

Alex: The idea is to make simple things simple with drag-and-drop, but we have a formula language based on Excel for more complex needs. For example, calculating age from a date of birth. For analysis, our calculated measure language is based on DAX (from Power BI), allowing for complex aggregations and unions.

Mehmet: Are there possibilities to use ActivityInfo on a local host in our country instead of your database?

Alex: Yes, we offer a self-managed server version. You can download it freely from our website (it comes with a 60-day trial) and run it on your own hardware using Docker or a Windows installer. We would have no access to that data; it runs completely on your own hardware.

00:59:20 Closing

Alex: I really appreciate everybody joining today. Please leave us feedback in the survey. We have a series of webinars coming up, so please take a look at our website under Support and Webinars. Thank you.