GMS BI Open Forum July

POSTED BY Kathy Rombouts | 30 October 2017 | Open Forums

Participants
Afghanistan CBPF, DRC CBPF, Myanmar CBPF, Turkey CBPF

Feedback
If there are any issues with or feedback on the BI, please complete this Survey Monkey: Click here.
Based on your feedback we will decide what items should be prioritized in terms of BI development.

  1. General remarks
    The GMS tram is reviewing the dashboards in the internal BI. We would request the HFUs to provide us with feedback on the data currently available in the internal BI. Before we make what is available now on the internal BI public on the external BI, we would like to have all HFU’s endorsement. It is critical for us to know if the BI does not meet your requirements. Are you ready to show this data to the donors as it is displayed now?Please note that when the data that is now on the internal BI will be poured into a different format when it goes to the public interface. The layout will change and it will be made more user friendly to filter down the types of beneficiaries and see how the split of e.g. the gender is. We need your inputs on how the donor would like to see this data so that we can present it better in the public interface. The more details you can give us the better!
  2. BI - Beneficiary data
    • Can data be shared by age and gender? We would like to see the targeted and reached beneficiaries. Donors also want to see the number men/women/boys/girls. (Afghanistan CBPF)
        • We already have a split on beneficiary types in GMS (see screenshot). As you can see gender is also already there. Age is not displayed as the data on age is not captured in GMS.

      BI - Beneficiary Data

    • Donors would like to see how many IPDs, refugees, host communities and returnees there are for each fund/region (M/W/B/G). (Afghanistan CBPF)
      This information is already in the internal BI - it is not yet available in the external BI. We will be putting in an extra filter to split up the different types of direct beneficiaries further.
    • The breakdown for M/W/B/G is now set up for the actual beneficiaries, it would be useful if that breakdown can also be set up for the targeted beneficiaries? Beneficiaries are the category picked by the donors in most cases and most countries as something they want to see data on, they also wanted to see how beneficiaries are split by region. (Afghanistan CBPF)
      Sure that would be very useful and can be done. Please provide us your comments on how to improve it and then it will go to the public.
    • We would like to have a split in the projects as we will have a new allocation with multi-cluster projects and multiple sub clusters in one cluster. (Afghanistan CBPF)

  3. GMS - Sub-Clusters
    • We would like to have a split in the projects as we will have a new allocation with multi-cluster projects and multiple sub clusters in one cluster. (Afghanistan CBPF)
      GMS supports multi-cluster, but multi-sub cluster for one project is not supported yet. The reason behind this is that we do not have multi sub-cluster right now. We support multi-cluster so if you have e.g. a Health and Protection project then both Health and Protection each have a logical framework in the project proposal. Sometimes within a cluster e.g. Protection you have multiple sub-clusters such as mine action and GBV. So are you looking to have 2 logical frameworks for those sub-clusters?Response (Afghanistan CBPF): Yes, each of the sub-clusters has their own little mini sub-cluster organization so they each need to report on their own indicators and own financing. In the logical framework, budget and project location they are separate. Therefore, for this next allocation we are aiming for more multi-cluster and multi sub-cluster projects to avoid that one partner submits 5 different projects.
    • We would like to have a split in the projects as we will have a new allocation with multi-cluster projects and multiple sub clusters in one cluster. (Afghanistan CBPF)
      This concept has to be discussed with FCS POU. The entire project in GMS revolves around the cluster modules, for now a sub-cluster is purely a sub-cluster under a cluster. If you have 10 different clusters you can have 10 different logical frameworks and they report against indicators, activities and locations of their own. For the sub-cluster level that will not be possible. To overcome that we suggest to have Protection (GBV), Protection (Mine action), … which you can create in Afghanistan as clusters and link all of them to the standard protection global cluster.In the BI they will always represent and show as protection, not the sub-clusters. In GMS you will then have all of them at the protection level. It is also necessary to understand how it will go from system to system. For example, in the BI people will never see Protection (GBV) but only protection as that is the standard global cluster we have. In the internal BI there it will also be visible at the global cluster level, not sub-country specific cluster level. We can create additional dashboards in the internal BI to show you the split for the different protection clusters at the country level. This is our proposed way forward and it needs to be discussed with POU, they need to give their agreement on that.
    • Who can create additional clusters on GMS? (Afghanistan CBPF)
      Please send us your requirements and we will be able to create the clusters for you, put your POU focal point in copy so we can agree on the methodology that was just discussed.
    • Would it be possible to have education in emergencies as its own cluster although it officially is not a cluster in Afghanistan. (Afghanistan CBPF)
      To be discussed with POU. For GMS yes this is possible.
    • How do you propose to tackle multi-cluster cash? (Afghanistan CBPF)
      This item has not been finalized yet. There is no clear strategy and policy. We have proposed something to POU on how to show this in GMS but it has not been approved yet. We will organize a forum for your feedback on how we plan to implement this in GMS. We propose to create dedicated standard activities, specific objectives, etc. for that so that you will have a dedicated logical framework based on that.
  4. BI - Presentation of new dashboard for project summary and maps (currently being tested)

    BI - Project Summary

    We have developed new maps with new layers (dots) for each location for the pooled funds. We now have polygons, tiles. that would aggregate projects aggregated by use, beneficiaries and the different incentives for each fund.On the right hand there are filters to separate by fund and allocation year.By hoovering over each region you would get the total amount USD allocated by region, as well as the number of project that operate in that particular region in any given year.

    We have incorporated a color coding when you select a specific location, based on that selection we will filter out all values from that particular region.It is possible to select several regions or to look at a number of projects, particular distribution of projects, allocated budget, percentage for one particular region, etc. All have dedicated geographical filtering and color coding. We are using the map to represent the most prevalent regions from any fund, and then you can filter any point of interest based on the funds.

    BI - Project Summary

    We also have this new dashboard that provides more detail on each project. They are sorted by budget, allocated by cluster for each budget for each fund. You can scroll up and down and the manner change sorting. You can pick one particular project if you have its project number. In addition, it is possible to extract the whole table in an Excel file.

    Questions and comments after presentation

    • Web links that have been shared are very helpful! Great maps which regards to province and district level, both on pending and how many beneficiaries. (Afghanistan CBPF)
    • Great map but is it possible to zoom into the district level? (Afghanistan CBPF)
      This boils down to whether we have those particular coordinate values for each project. Geo-localization right now is based on first admin level 1 – this is the region level for most countries. For some countries it happens that we have first level of UN recognized level of UN localization. For other countries we have a level 2. For example, Myanmar has some regions that have changed administratively and the same thing happened for DRC where the names of some regions have changed. Now do we have better coordinates? We have them for some funds but not all. Therefore, we had to make a tradeoff between showing all projects and bring them together with the region or leave out some project because we don’t have precise location data.We will start working on the level 2 – 3 admin locations if we get the data, but this will be a long process. It will require dynamic changes in the map when it is changed and this will be difficult.
    • Donors do not only want to see how much funding we have allocated, but they also want to see what the needs where. For example, there is population in need map of the HRP. To solve this issue we put our map of funding on top of that. Would it be possible to show target beneficiaries? Instead of only project budget? (Afghanistan CBPF)
      Yes, we are able to use it for any type of data point. The challenge of making a map is to locate regions and make something coherent and good-looking, which we believe is that case now. Now we can include any type of visual information with any type of color coding such as beneficiaries, budget and clusters (we already have the location data available at the cluster level).The challenge is to now bring the proper use of the map and make it user friendly. Millions of records have been cleaned to generate this map for all the users of the 18 CBPF countries. Right now we will publish this map as it is and then we can start adding these specific requests like beneficiaries, cluster split per region, map with HRP data (only possible if we get data digitally).Our next target is to bring up more data at the region level that we already have in GMS. Then we will go to HRP data to overlap it with this data. This could be the answer for what donors are asking. This is our target and way forward: to get more data and show it to the users.
  5. BI - Creation of reports via BI
    • When trying to extract reports from the BI for Turkey for example we could not see the partners with their project? We can only see the breakdown of INGOs, NNGOs, UN Agencies, etc.There is a reason for that: The Turkey Fund has requested to anonymize the organization names due to security issues, so we don’t disclose it.On the internal BI information right now is being shared with HFU and some people use this data to show to other users as well, therefore we don’t disclose any information. But right now in GMS you can have that if you’re part of the Turkey fund. When we are ready we can also bring this data to the internal BI.The idea is that the data that is presented here will all go to the external BI. What we have right now are interim dashboards for which we need to get focus, approval and feedbacks. What are the donors asking for? What other fields do you maybe require? Then the data can go out to the public BI. It is not like there are things that are hidden, but is the data clean? For example, not all data is put into GMS, so that needs to be cleaned first.Afterwards, when all from the internal BI has been pushed to the external BI we aim to keep the internal BI available only for confidential data. Meaning this data should only be accessible for HFU and senior management. It will contain things such as the performance of PI, scorecards, data on IP performance, etc. These are things only you as HFU need to know and work on together with the IP to improve that. Only that data should be on the internal BI and not go on the public BI.
    • How can we extract a report that has the total budget vs. the expenditures? For example, right now in Allocation per year per IP: in that we see the percentage expenditure and percentage allocation against allocation. The amount disbursed is only info that is missing. In BI there are currently 2 different dashboards and we do not know how to combine them: Allocations per IP and year and Disbursements.
      There will be an Excel created which you will be able to download. We will create the Excel link over there and would like to ask you to discuss the format with Kenny (GMS Support Unit) and then we can add more fields over the longer term. If we do it that way, all the funds then can also use it.
    • The BI itself records all budget, allocations and expenditures, but when the HoO and Fund managers ask us how much money we have Bi and OCT giving slightly different reports.
      To get the data from OCT you look for the OCT report – received/paid allocations, search for the contributions and then extract the Excel sheet.Now the problem of the difference between OCT and BI is as follows. The BI is taking the data from OCT, but it is showing exactly the data that is to be shared with donors. This should match with both the BI and GMS. Now the discrepancy is due to the conversion rates: If a donor is pledging to pay money on the 1st of October (for example EUR 1 million), then the financial system records it into the system and converts the rate into USD. OCT records that data which has come as an income to OCHA. When the contribution is then paid on 1st of December, meaning actual cash is paid, there is a win-loss situation. The conversion rate of 1 December is applied to the payment, but the income is shown as of 1st of October. We show the value as pledged so far (rate of 1st of October), but when the actual payment comes in we start showing the actual paid value when the payment is received (rate of 1st of December). We do this do display to you the actual money in your hand against which you should plan your allocation.Also, we would like to refer to the GMS Module which shows fund balance and the cumulative value of the cash you have in hand for your fund.