00:00:00 Introduction

Fay: I would like to introduce to you our presenter. Claire is the Global Programme Impact & MEAL Manager for Islamic Relief Worldwide. She leads a team of seven members at the headquarters level that provide both remote technical support as well as field-based capacity building of MEAL staff for all IRW's country offices. She works on enhancing Islamic Relief's commitment for results-based programming, increased accountability, and institutionalised learning. Previously, Claire worked in the international programmes team at CARE International UK. She holds an MA in Conflict, Security and Development from Exeter University. So without any further ado, welcome Claire. The stage is yours.

00:00:48 Opening remarks

Claire Bedwell-Thomas: Thank you so much, Fay, for that introduction. Good afternoon, everyone, and good morning or good evening where some of you are as well. Assalamu Alaikum, and Eid Mubarak for tomorrow for those of you who are celebrating. Before I start, I just wanted to say that I hope everybody is safe and well in these incredibly challenging and troubled times we find ourselves in. Our thoughts and prayers are with you all at this time.

Welcome to this webinar. Today, I'm here more as the project manager for the Global Programmes & MEAL System rollout. It is part of my role as the Global Programme Impact & MEAL Manager as well, but my focus today will be on the rollout journey that we've been through. I want to share some of the lessons learned. I will be very open and honest about the challenges, the problems, and how we've tried to navigate around them—some successfully, some not so successfully. Hopefully, I can put your mind at rest that it is possible to do without losing your sense of humor completely.

00:02:40 About Islamic Relief Worldwide

Just before I get into the webinar itself, here is a quick introduction to Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW). We're a faith-based humanitarian and development international NGO. We have a country office presence in about 30 countries, but we do implement through local partners in non-presence countries for about another 10. The numbers on the screen are based on 2024. Just for openness and transparency, we've already done our numbers for 2025, but they are with audit, so I am not allowed to give you those numbers until they have passed our internal and external audit process.

In 2024, we had just under 800 projects in about 38 countries, and our total reach was about 14.5 million unique direct rightsholders. This is across a number of intervention sectors. We focus a lot on humanitarian work, but we are also a development agency and have an orphan sponsorship program that's been in operation for many years for about 90,000 orphans. Being a faith-based organization, we also do a number of seasonal projects and programs around Ramadan, Qurbani, and Eid.

00:04:35 Agenda

What we're going to go through today is essentially our journey: from where it started to where we are now, and what were some of those key activities that we did—from the initial idea to the actual rollout itself. I also want to talk about the importance of the team and the different skill sets and responsibilities that are needed, which we found we needed throughout the process. Finally, I will talk about the actual tools that we used. I am sure you can guess what platform we used, but I will cover what other tools we also used to help us along that journey.

00:05:46 Background and context

Let's look back at what we were trying to achieve. Regarding the Global Programmes & MEAL System (GPMS), we have a responsibility to maintain accurate data on our projects and to ensure that we implement the highest quality and accountable projects that we can. We operate what we call a Project Life Cycle approach—from project design to planning, implementation, review, and evaluation. We do that through a Programme Quality & MEAL Framework, and all of that is aligned to the Core Humanitarian Standard. We've had that in operation for a good number of years now.

The problem we found is that our tools were really out of date. What one person did in one country was completely different from how somebody did it in a different country. Some had a system, most didn't, or there was a hybrid between the two. When we looked at our data collection tools, if you could name it, somebody somewhere was using it. It was very inconsistent, which meant we had a lack of standardization, a lack of digitalization, and a lack of a consistent way of approaching our programs, MEAL, and data management. We had offline templates, Excel, Word, disparate systems, and apps; it was unwieldy and ad hoc.

It also meant that we weren't really storing our data in the most secure way or necessarily following industry best practices. Importantly, it was really inefficient for our country teams and field teams. Everybody was asking them the same questions in a slightly different way at different times of the year. It was inefficient for them, while other stakeholders didn't have oversight of the performance of our projects and program portfolio. That is the background of what we were trying to address by having this digital solution. We knew the GPMS was not a magic bullet that was going to fix everything, but that's why we started on this journey.

One of the most important things was getting people bought into the fact that it wasn't just a MEAL system and it wasn't just a program system; it was both. That was the first hurdle. Program staff needed to feel that it was just as much their system as MEAL. We had to do a lot of engagement and change management work to get that message across—that they are both equally responsible and accountable for keeping it up to date.

00:09:50 Objectives of the GPMS

One of the main goals was that it had to be designed from the ground up. Yes, we were facilitating and leading the project, but we are not the best people to say what a field-based system should look like. Our red line was that it had to be led from the field. Our firm belief was that if we can get it right for the people on the ground who are going to be using it, and if we make their life easier, then all the other stakeholders will naturally have access to the information they need because it is being updated. We've all seen top-down implementations fail because nobody thinks about the person updating the data.

We wanted it to cover the whole scope of project and MEAL data and information management. This includes managing basic project data, risk registers, tracking issues, tracking activities, and allocating which rightsholders have participated in which activities so that we could automatically get that rightsholder reached number. This year, we're going to focus more on the survey and data collection piece—taking away disparate systems like Kobo, ODK, or Google Forms and bringing it all in-house within the GPMS.

Absolutely critical is being able to track MEAL indicators and our results so that we can really help to demonstrate impact. We wanted to show how it's aligned with our Global Results Framework and the SDGs to maximize impact reporting.

We wanted to standardize where we can, but we also needed to recognize that a one-size-fits-all approach is not going to work. What the team needed in Mali is not the same as what the team needs in Yemen. We allowed it to be configured and owned at that country level. Every country has their own version of the system so that we can tailor the specifics to their context, structure, and operations.

Obviously, one of the key things is to be able to get reports, data analysis, and reports at the touch of a button, whether that's through the system or through Power BI. Because we were trying to be led by the field, we really wanted translations where possible. The system is in English, but we have also translated it into Arabic and French. We utilized the translation function within the system and added professional translators to ensure accuracy—avoiding issues like translating "MEAL plan" to "recipe" in French. We also translated our training resources.

Finally, a longer-term objective is to integrate with a new finance system that our finance team is implementing globally. We wanted to be able to pull budget and expenditure information without expecting financial transaction updates within our system. That is a work in progress.

00:15:31 Stakeholders involved

There are many stakeholders that have a key interest in this system: International Programmes Department (IPD), Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW), the Board of Trustees (BOT), and others. However, our primary stakeholders are our country colleagues and field officers. If we get it right for them, we get it right for everybody else.

A key point is that only teams at a country level are able to edit the data. They are the data owners, responsible and accountable for that. Everybody else can only view the information or add a comment. We didn't want it to get unwieldy regarding who is changing what. Everything is about having better visibility and accessibility of data to help inform key decision-making.

00:17:12 Key activities and timeline

We started a good few years ago. For those who want to do something similar on a global scale, please don't think that it can be done in three to six months. The initial few months were all about stakeholder engagement. We held kickoff meetings across all different stakeholders. We mapped who might have an interest and held separate meetings with each group to make them feel part of it from the beginning. This wasn't requirements gathering yet; it was just bringing them on board and gauging interest.

Once we did that, we moved into a specific design and requirements phase. We had about 15 different workshops online across three to four months, with about 40 people attending each time. Critically, we only had country-level participation initially—Programmes and MEAL staff, project officers, field experts, and advisors. We asked them what they needed the system to do and what critical functionality they wanted. They formed the background of our requirements gathering.

We then took those requirements and had them validated by additional stakeholders at the head office, senior levels, and our fundraising offices to ensure we hadn't missed anything. This allowed us to build a pilot system with critical functionality. We ran a six-month pilot with two countries in each region—eight countries in total. We picked diverse countries; some were digitally advanced, while others were not used to cloud-based systems or had difficult internet connections. We wanted to test it thoroughly.

After the pilot, we held a review, gathered lessons learned, and made changes. In 2024, we held regional orientation workshops. These were one week in duration, held in each region, with representatives from programmes and MEAL. We took them through about three projects from start to finish, learning a lot from their questions and feedback. We tweaked the system after each workshop.

This allowed us to focus on the rollout itself in 2025. This involved setting up each country's database and loading project data. We decided to only bring in projects that were live from January 1st, 2025. We loaded historical data from 2023 onwards, verified it, and then went live in each country.

The main challenge is that it always takes longer than you think. Our country teams are there to save lives, not test systems, so we had to fit into their priorities. The commitment from our country teams was incredible, even from teams facing severe challenges like in Gaza and Sudan. The buy-in and commitment part took a long time—lots of one-to-one meetings—but it was worth it. We've had almost zero pushback since going live because people felt heard and valued.

00:27:33 Regional orientation and rollout

All of our countries are now live, with the last one going live at the end of December 2023. Some countries started sooner than others based on when the orientation workshops happened. We launched at the country level first to let them familiarize themselves with the system before giving access to other stakeholders. This allowed us to tailor the rollout to their needs and readiness.

We held workshops for East Africa in Nairobi and West Africa in Malawi. For the Middle East and Eastern Europe, we held a workshop in Istanbul. Finally, our Asia countries had their workshop in Indonesia. Despite being the last region, the Asia team went live almost immediately due to high engagement.

00:31:20 The implementation team

Regarding the team and skills needed: I am the project manager. I have a little background in software—enough to be dangerous—and have worked in MEAL for seven to eight years. That combination was helpful, but you don't need it in one person; you just need the technical expert and the subject matter expert on the team. If ICT had led this project alone, they wouldn't necessarily understand what a project officer needs in the field.

Initially, it was just me, then Asim joined, and later we recruited Javier. The three of us became the core team. Only Asim was full-time on the project initially; Javier and I had other roles, which was difficult. I would recommend a dedicated project manager if possible. We also pulled in extra staff occasionally, and recently Ganesh joined to help with onboarding.

Crucially, our country teams were part of the team as subject matter experts, system designers, data inputs, and quality assurance. We also had a positive project sponsor at the head office who championed the project strategically. We had great support from internal ICT regarding data protection and security. ActivityInfo, our external partner, was absolutely critical in system design, implementation, and requirements mapping.

00:38:03 Tools and platform selection

We are using ActivityInfo as our platform. We looked at about 30 systems, including internal ones, sector-specific systems, and cloud-based options like Salesforce and Microsoft for Nonprofits. We scored them against our requirements. ActivityInfo came out way above the others.

Key decisions for choosing ActivityInfo included:

We have been challenging clients because we need a global system that functions in 27 countries independently but consistently. The ActivityInfo team has been amazing with support and collaboration. We also use a tool called Q-Punch for our internal project management.

00:41:09 Key takeaways and lessons learned

00:46:46 Q&A session

Question: What is your approach to bringing AI or machine learning into the system in the future?

Claire: This is on our roadmap for 2026. We needed to get the basic system and data in place first. We want to use AI ethically for labor-intensive summaries of impact—trawling data from 27 databases to report against our Global Results Framework. We will start with a few use cases and pilot it before a strategic rollout.

Question: How is the system sustainable cost-wise, considering shrinking financial pipelines?

Claire: We were fortunate to have budget for the face-to-face workshops as part of a larger digital transformation at IRW. Now that the system is live, the ongoing licensing costs with ActivityInfo are incredibly cost-effective compared to other enterprise systems. Furthermore, the system helps us demonstrate impact, which supports targeted marketing and fundraising, potentially increasing revenue. It’s a push-pull dynamic where the system helps raise visibility.

Question: What is the feedback from country programming so far on the extent to which they feel it supports impact?

Claire: It is a mix. Teams that have been using it longer see the benefits clearly. Newer teams still feel it is an extra burden as they get used to it, but they know the long-term value. It allows them to manage projects online rather than through disparate offline tools. It saves them time by reducing ad-hoc information requests from stakeholders, as data is available via reports and dashboards. We have set up a country-level steering committee to get regular feedback on what works and what doesn't.

Question: Do you have multiple layers of processing/approval?

Claire: Currently, we have simple layers. Usually, a Project Officer and MEAL Officer update data, reviewed by a Manager, and signed off monthly by the Country Director. We are building in approval workflows and notifications this year to automate this, as it is currently manual. We want to avoid excessive bureaucracy but ensure quality control.

Question: Does GPMS manage qualitative data like Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), Key Informant Interviews (KIIs), and case studies?

Claire: At the moment, it is more geared toward quantitative data. However, later this year, we are launching our survey and data collection module which will focus more on qualitative data. We have a document library for uploads, and we are building in a complaints and feedback register and toolkit. This will allow for trend analysis and qualitative insights, moving beyond just logging lessons learned to actually using them.

Fay: Thank you so much, Claire, for the amazing presentation and for sharing everything in such detail. Thank you to the audience for the questions. We will have the recording on the website. Thank you all.