National Society ICT Health Check Jeremy Mortimer - Manager, IT Advisory Services Unit jeremy.mortimer@ifrc.org

The question arose when we were designing the ICT Capacity Survey What are the minimum standards for the ICT capacities of a National Society? If we could establish a common standard for all National Societies, we could start to work towards all of them achieving that standard

But how do you come up with a single standard which is equally applicable to National Societies working in such diverse environments, with such different levels of resources available to them? Can you really hold the Guinea Red Cross to the same standards as the Swiss Red Cross? At that time it wasn’t obvious that there was a way to find a common standard.

Instead we came up with the ICT capacity index (the Nepalese Red Cross, here, with a score of 50.4) The ICT capacity index is calculated by a complicated algorithm from the answers to more than 40 questions in the ICT capacity survey. It gives us a rough numerical measure of the IT strength of a National Society. As you can see from the previous slide (back) it produces results more or less in line with expectations.

Limitations of the ICT Capacity Index Based only on objective, easily quantifiable responses What proportion of staff have a computer? What Internet bandwidth is available at HQ? Do management consult IT specialists as often as they should? Can’t be unpacked – provides no guidance on how to improve

Is there a better way?

Organizational Capacity Assessment and Certification (OCAC) An IFRC initiative that allows National Societies to assess themselves against defined international standards to provide a diagnostic to facilitate tailor-made NS development support

OCAC: How do we measure? Core capacities Attributes Indicators A B C D Statutes A B C D E A - E 1 - 4 The NS has Statutes that are available at all levels of the NS. The Statutes have been revised less than 10 years ago. The NS Statutes meet the requirements of the guidance document. The NS regularly discusses and disseminates its Statutes. It involves all levels of the NS in this process. The Core Capacities are: to exist (as in this example), to organize, to relate and mobilize, to perform, to grow Within the core capacity to exist, we have an attribute: Statutes Against the attribute we have indicators for levels A through E A is empty – it means anything less than B Explain how we assign a level for each attribute

OCAC: Benchmarking For each attribute there is a benchmark Core capacities Attributes Indicators A B C D E For each attribute there is a benchmark The benchmark can differ from one attribute to another The benchmark can differ according to the environment Enabling environment Organisationally restrictive environment Financially restrictive environment OCAC allows us to set benchmarks In general the benchmark starts at the C level, but can be modified depending on the environment in which the National Society works

4 - Critical OCAC: Prioritization PRIORITIZE 1 – Not relevant Core capacities Attributes Indicators Prioritize 1 - 4 A-E A B C D E A or B A: The NS has no statistics related to volunteer involvement PRIORITIZE 1 – Not relevant 2 – Relevant but not Urgent 3 – Relevant and Urgent 4 - Critical Once a level has been assigned, we can assign a priority for further action.

OCAC: 85 Attributes

Advantages of the OCAC approach Applicable to all National Societies Applied through a consultative approach – builds consensus Attributes are very specific Can address issues which aren’t easily quantifiable Immediately suggests steps to take to improve Prioritization A couple of disadvantages The process is heavy Absolutely dependent on getting the right attributes and indicators (is the success model correct?)

ICT Health Check Uses the OCAC format – attributes, indicators, benchmarks, prioritization Somewhat simplified, e.g. we assign the benchmark to the C level in all cases A lighter process (not for the IT manager though!) Many attributes rather more technical than in OCAC 51 attributes (currently), plus applications Applications had to be handled a bit differently So we decided to use the OCAC approach for the Health Check

The National Society ICT Health Check Here’s the beginning

Health Check – attribute criteria (equivalent to Core Capacities in OCAC) Strategic planning Operational planning Project planning Infrastructure Operations and user services Online identity Skills Security and Risk Management Applications The Health Check pays a lot of attention to management, planning, resourcing, skills etc. The technical stuff is in there too, but we find that If you get the organizational stuff right, the technical stuff is much more likely to work.

Health Check – a couple of examples Work through an example Note the C level is the benchmark If there is a legal requirement (e.g. licensing or data protection) the C level is never less than full compliance

Applications It’s too complicated to develop indicators for every application that may ever exist Generic indicators for applications – operational and programme support

Applications – beneficiary facing

Health Check – the process Facilitated self-assessment (somewhat like OCAC) An external facilitator will work with the IT manager and NS stakeholders Headquarters and selected branches 5 days is ideal (preparation, branch visits, etc. take some time) Interviews with stakeholders, so fairly light except for the facilitator and IT manager Maybe a presentation of preliminary findings at the end Outputs: the completed matrix, and a short facilitator’s report

Health Check – what do you get? A comprehensive assessment of your National Society’s strengths and challenges in IT A set of priorities which can become objectives for your IT development plan The indicators show rather specifically what you need to do to improve

Health Check - pilots June 2015 Zimbabwe October 2015 Ethiopia February 2016 Kenya March 2016 Indonesia April 2016 Myanmar, Fiji, Kiribati May 2016 Cook Islands, Solomon Islands

Health check vs. ICT capacity index A single figure derived from the Health Check Assigned a score of 1 for A, 2 for B etc., then normalized to a percentage Excluding application scores (the applications section can be used to record wished-for systems, which inflates the A scores) No Capacity Index for the last one (Solomon Is.) A reasonably good fit. Not perfect, but we’re measuring rather different things. A higher Health Check score vs. Capacity Index (e.g. the 1st, 4th, 6th) may indicate a NS which is getting IT management right, but working in an economically restrictive environment

Distribution of levels Mostly, the plots are a rather similar shape Some As, a lot of Bs, a good proportion of Cs, and even some Ds and Es Note the Cook Islands

Distribution of levels Kenya

Distribution of levels Kiribati and the Solomon Islands Very small National Societies in a very special environment I would like to see some NSs whose lines are the same shape, but the other way around

Health Check – Next Steps Roll out to regions (already being used in Asia/Pacific) If you are interested, contact me or your regional IS manager Can be used as a standalone tool Can also be used as part of the follow-up to an OCAC assessment, if it indicates that IT should get more attention Once we have done a sufficient number, we will start to analyse results to identify common challenges that we can address specifically