ICTworks

MERL and development practitioners have long wrestled with complex ethical, regulatory, and technical aspects of adopting new data approaches and technologies. The topic of responsible data has gained traction over the past 5 years or so, and a handful of early adopters have developed and begun to operationalize institutional RD policies.

Translating policy into practical action, however, can feel daunting to organizations. Constrained budgets, complex internal bureaucracies, and ever-evolving technology and regulatory landscapes make it hard to even know where to start.

The Principles for Digital Development provide helpful high level standards, and donor guidelines (such as USAID’s Responsible Data Considerations) offer additional framing. But there’s no one-size-fits-all policy or implementation plan that organizations can simply copy and paste in order to tick all the responsible data boxes.

We don’t think organizations should do that anyway, given that each organization’s context and operating approach is different, and policy means nothing if it’s not rolled out through actual practice and behavior change!

In September, we hosted a MERL Tech pre-workshop on Operationalizing Responsible Data to discuss and share different ways of turning responsible data policy into practice. Below we’ve summarized some tips shared at the workshop. RD champions in organizations of any size can consider these when developing and implementing RD policy.

1. Understand Your Context & Extend Empathy

• Before developing policy, conduct a non-punitive assessment (a.k.a. a landscape assessment, self-assessment or staff research process) on existing data practices, norms, and decision-making structures . This should engage everyone who will using or affected by the new policies and practices. Help everyone relax and feel comfortable sharing how they’ve been managing data up to now so that the organization can then improve. (Hint: avoid the term ‘audit’ which makes everyone nervous.)
• Create ‘safe space’ to share and learn through the assessment process:
  • Allow staff to speak anonymously about their challenges and concerns whenever possible
  • Highlight and reinforce promising existing practices
  • Involve people in a ‘self-assessment’
  • Use participatory workshops (e.g. work with a team to map a project’s data flows or conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment or a Risk-Benefits Assessment) – this allows everyone who participates to gain RD awareness while also learning new practical tools along with highlighting any areas that need attention. The workshop lead or “RD champion” can also then get a better sense of the wider organizations knowledge, attitudes and practices as related to RD
  • Acknowledge (and encourages institutional leaders to affirm) that most staff don’t have “RD expert” written into their JDs; reinforce that staff will not be ‘graded’ or evaluated on skills they weren’t hired for.
• Identify organizational stakeholders likely to shape, implement, or own aspects of RD policy and tailor your engagement strategies to their perspectives, motivations, and concerns. Some may feel motivated financially (avoiding fines or the cost of a data breach); others may be motivated by human rights or ethics; whereas some others might be most concerned with RD with respect to reputation, trust, funding and PR.
• Map organizational policies, major processes (like procurement, due diligence, grants management), and decision making structures to assess how RD policy can be integrated into these existing activities.

2. Consider Alternative Models to Develop RD Policy

• There is no ‘one size fits all’ approach to developing RD policy. As the (still small, but promising) number of organizations adopting policy grows, different approaches are emerging. Here are some that we’ve seen:
  • Top-down: An institutional-level policy is developed, normally at the request of someone on the leadership team/senior management. It is then adapted and applied across projects, offices, etc.
    • Works best when there is strong leadership buy-in for RD policy and a focal point (e.g. an ‘Executive Sponsor’) coordinating policy formation and navigating stakeholders
  • Bottom-up: A group of staff are concerned about RD but do not have support or interest from senior leadership, so they ‘self-start’ the learning process and begin shaping their own practices, joining together, meeting, and communicating regularly until they have wider buy-in and can approach leadership with a use case and budget request for an organization-wide approach.
    • Good option if there is little buy-in at the top and you need to build a case for why RD matters.
  • Project- or Team-Generated: Development and application of RD policies are piloted within a targeted project or projects or on one team. Based on this smaller slice of the organization, the project or team documents its challenges, process, and lessons learned to build momentum for and inform the development of future organization-wide policy.
    • Promising option when organizational awareness and buy-in for RD is still nascent and/or resources to support RD policy formation and adoption (staff, financial, etc.) are limited.
  • Hybrid approach: Organizational policy/policies are developed through pilot testing across a reasonably-representative sample of projects or contexts. For example, an organization with diverse programmatic and geographical scope develops and pilots policies in a select set of country offices that can offer different learning and experiences; e.g., a humanitarian-focused setting, a development-focused setting, and a mixed setting; a small office, medium sized office and large office; 3-4 offices in different regions; offices that are funded in various ways; etc.
    • Promising option when an organization is highly decentralized and works across a diverse country contexts and settings. Supports the development of approaches that are relevant and responsive to diverse capacities and data contexts.

3. Couple Policy with Practical Tools, and Test Early and Often

• In order to translate policy into action, couple it with practical tools that support existing organizational practices.
• Make sure tools and processes empower staff to make decisions and relate clearly to policy standards or components; for example:
  • If the RD policy includes a high-level standard such as, “We ensure that our partnerships with technology companies align with our RD values,” give staff tools and guidance to assess that alignment.
• When developing tools and processes, involve target users early and iteratively. Don’t worry if draft tools aren’t perfectly formatted. Design with users to ensure tools are actually useful before you sink time into tools that will sit on a shelf at best, and confuse or overburden staff at worst.

4. Integrate and “Right-Size” Solutions

• As RD champions, it can be tempting to approach RD policy in a silo, forgetting it is one of many organizational priorities. Be careful to integrate RD into existing processes, align RD with decision-making structures and internal culture, and do not place unrealistic burdens on staff.
• When building tools and processes, work with stakeholders to develop responsibility assignment charts (e.g. RACI, MOCHA) and determine decision makers.
• When developing responsibility matrices, estimate the hours each stakeholder (including partners, vendors, and grantees) will dedicate to a particular tool or process. Work with anticipated end users to ensure that processes:
  • Can realistically be carried out within a normal workload
  • Will not excessively burden staff and partners
  • Are realistically proportionate to the size, complexity, and risk involved in a particular investment or project

5. Bridge Policy and Behavior Change with Capacity Building

• Integrating RD policy and practices requires behavior change and can feel technically intimidating to staff. Remember to reassure staff that no one (not even the best resourced technology firms!), has responsible data mastered, and that perfection is not the goal.
• In order to feel confident using new tools and approaches to make decisions, staff need knowledge to analyze information. Skills and knowledge required will be different according to role, so training should be adapted accordingly. While IT staff may need to know the ins and outs of network security, general program officers certainly do not.
• Accompany staff as they integrate RD processes into their work. Walk alongside them, answering questions along the way, but more importantly, helping staff build confidence to develop their own internal RD compass. That way the pool of RD champions will grow!

What approaches have you seen work in your organization?

By Alexandra Robinson and Linda Raftree and originally published as 5 tips for operationalizing Responsible Data policy