Colin Rogers is the CEO of MapAction. MapAction is a lean, mean, mapping machine that turns complex data into clear, actionable maps to support frontline workers and decision-makers during crises. With about 100 volunteers, some of whom have been with the organisation for two decades, MapAction shows a unique, geeky charm. They work closely with partners like the UNDAC to alleviate the pressure on those calling the shots in crisis situations.

Tune in to hear how MapAction translates complex humanitarian data into the language of action, supplementing the gut feelings of decision makers.

[Lars Peter Nissen] (0:51 - 2:17)

MapAction is a small and wonderful organization. If you've ever come across their volunteers in the field I'm sure that you've been struck by the combination of extreme service orientation and very very sharp technical GIS skills. A former CEO of MapAction used to say that everybody loves a mapper and I'm beginning to think that he was right. In this conversation I sit down with Colin Rogers the current CEO of MapAction to discuss how to evolve MapAction's original business model from the short volunteer mission during sudden onset disasters to a broader approach that also works with capacity development and protracted crisis. We touch on a number of other issues as well such as how to evolve a very British organization to become more diverse how technology is evolving and what the implications of that is and what you do when you produce a great map but the decision maker continues to make the same mistakes. I enjoyed the conversation very much and hope that you will as well. Share it, make some noise on social media, give us some feedback we love to hear from you and we really do listen to what you say and take it into account but as always the most important thing is that you enjoy the conversation. Colin Rogers, welcome to Trumanitarian.

[Colin Rogers] (2:17 - 2:23)

Great, it's really nice to be here Lars Peter many thanks for the invitation, looking forward to talking.

[Lars Peter Nissen] (2:23 - 2:43)

You're the CEO of MapAction one of my favourite little geeky outfits in the humanitarian sector and so of course I needed to have you on, there was no question there. You came in about seven months ago as the CEO of MapAction tell us a bit about your background before that.

[Colin Rogers] (2:44 - 3:23)

Absolutely, so seven months it has flown by since joining but before that I've been in the humanitarian sector now for about 30 years. 16 of that was frontline humanitarian operations started off in with MSF basically as a tropical parasitologist running laboratory diagnostic services and over the years increasingly got into management leading humanitarian operations and then after about 16 years I figured you know maybe I should try settling down a little bit rather than living out of my suitcase moving from country to country and moved into headquarters.

[Lars Peter Nissen] (3:24 - 3:40)

And so you come from sort of a I would say a traditional humanitarian background with a rock-solid operational experience from the frontline and then how did you learn about MapAction? Where does that come from? Where does that enter your head that maybe I should work with MapAction?

[Colin Rogers] (3:41 - 4:19)

I've seen MapAction in a number of different crises when I've deployed, I've been looking for maps, been looking for data on what's happened so I'd always seen MapAction when I turned up to a crisis and then when I saw that this role was advertised I was in there thinking well where do I go next with my career? What am I going to do? And I really was sitting and thinking about the scale of humanitarian need at the moment the constraints on funding and the importance of using data much more effectively to support decision making so that humanitarian aid can be targeted to the most at-risk populations.

[Lars Peter Nissen] (4:19 - 4:23)

Well we're sitting in the office of ACAPS so you're sort of preaching to the converted I would say.

[Colin Rogers] (4:23 - 4:24)

Absolutely.

[Lars Peter Nissen] (4:24 - 4:30)

You know I'm with you 100% there. Just describe to us at its core what is MapAction?

[Colin Rogers] (4:31 - 4:54)

MapAction at its core basically taking humanitarian data putting that on the map providing quality analysis so that frontline decision makers have the information they need to take difficult decisions during difficult times so really trying to make life easier for operational agencies.

[Lars Peter Nissen] (4:55 - 5:05)

So I think that's a very accurate description of what MapAction does but I don't think it is what MapAction is. So how would you describe the culture around MapAction?

[Colin Rogers] (5:07 - 6:31)

MapAction, it really struck me since joining that there is a real family feel to it. So unlike a lot of other humanitarian agencies our staffing structure is very lean. At the moment we're about 25 staff but we've got 100 volunteers and a number of those volunteers have been with us since the early days. They've been volunteering with MapAction for 20 years and there's a real spirit of belonging of applying their technical skills from the private sector or the work that they're normally doing and bringing that into the humanitarian sector. And MapAction spends a lot of time on training, supporting developing the skills of volunteers ensuring that they're equipped with the knowledge of the humanitarian sector and how that works in order to ensure that we are always providing that support. And we've just got, coming up for instance we have our annual simulation exercise. It's called Gilded. We've got about 100 people taking part this year where our volunteers and staff are going to be immersed in a three-day full-on simulation exercise building team spirit. We'll be camping out in the middle of nowhere in the northeast of England. Hopefully the weather will be okay.

[Lars Peter Nissen] (6:32 - 6:32)

You know it won't.

[Colin Rogers] (6:33 - 6:45)

I know it is going to rain whilst we're in our tents but this brings people together. So really preparing for the worst case situations that our volunteers may deploy into.

[Lars Peter Nissen] (6:46 - 7:20)

[Colin Rogers] (7:21 - 7:49)

It doesn't surprise me having met a large number of the volunteers who are so passionate and committed about bringing their technical geeky knowledge into the forefront of humanitarian response. And really they go on a deployment for two, three weeks and work solidly to produce that data and really making sure it's available in real time for those that are on the frontline.

[Lars Peter Nissen] (7:49 - 8:54)

I should say, I mean, absolutely no disrespect to the MapAction volunteers. I love them to bits. I think they're fantastic. And whenever I've worked with them in the field they've always been outstanding. So you start out with a volunteer model and a sort of very well-defined use case, I would say. You deploy two to three weeks with an UNDAC team. You support the humanitarian sector in a situation where there's a desperate lack of information and data. And as I have seen you, you've been extremely powerful as a technical partner to ONDAC and you really made a massive difference in many situations. But the world has changed a lot over the past 20 years and UNDAC doesn't necessarily occupy the central role it used to. We have a cluster system that didn't exist when you were first created. We have a humanitarian architecture that becomes more and more sophisticated by the day. And a lot of the work we do is no longer in two weeks and three weeks and then out. How does that work with a volunteer-based model?

Totally. And this is a journey that we're going on at the moment. So our new strategy has just been approved by the board in the last few months and this moves us beyond the purely emergency response work. So in particular, looking at issues around anticipatory action, health programming, looking at risk modelling, and again, recognising the diversity of skills that that volunteer pool has and then applying that across the spectrum of humanitarian programming. It's not all about deploying into emergencies now because across the sector, data has a key role to play. We've got, for instance, amongst our volunteers, experts in flood risk modelling. So how can we bring that into work around anticipatory action, for instance? We've got others that have a strong health programming background again. So how can we apply geospatial approaches into health programming in, for instance, conflict-affected states? So really moving beyond emergency response and saying, you know what? Geospatial analysis can be applied beyond just emergency response. Mapping, risk analysis has a real role to play.

There's no doubt about that. There's also no doubt that when you move beyond sudden onset, you also move beyond a volunteer model, I think, because it requires a much longer time frame, much more staff from your side. How do you manage that?

So we have grown the staff over time as well. So we're around 25 staff at the moment and those staff provide that longer term stability to programme, that continuity of engagement with donors, with NGO partners, UN partners, et cetera. And the volunteers are brought in for specific support where we can utilise their technical skill sets to advance a project. And some of them are able to provide more than a couple of weeks at a time and with enough time frame can continue to support a project going forwards. So we're trying to get this balance right at the moment between a staffing structure whilst maintaining a core element of volunteer spirit because the volunteers are what make MapAction. It's what brings in that energy. And as an organisation, we would never be able to afford the breadth and range of technical skills that a volunteer model enables us to tap into. The question for us is how do we move that volunteer model beyond what is a very British and European-centric model and tap into capabilities elsewhere?

Yeah, that was going to be my next question because on top of everything else, you are hyper-British. I mean, Prince Harry used to be your protector. I don't know if he still is, but he used to be. I hear that you had a charity polo game, for Christ's sake. I mean, just how British and posh can you actually get?

No, absolutely. MapAction was established in the UK. Our volunteer pool is primarily British, but we know that the humanity and sector is changing rapidly and we've got to change too.

We know also that there is a really rich skillset of geospatial data scientists out there. The question for us is how do we tap into that? How do we move our volunteer model from a UK-centric one where there is a close bond between the volunteers, which gives the spirit of who we are, that sense of belonging and family because they meet regularly. How do we expand that and bring in a much more globally diverse profile of volunteers without losing that certain magic that makes the organisation who it is? Because we would never be able to afford to bring in volunteers globally on a regular basis to meet also the impact on the environment, the climate that we need to be considering. So this is a real challenge that we're going through at the moment. Our board, my staff, myself, really challenging ourselves out of our comfort zone. How do we do things differently but keep the inner essence of who we are?

So it sounds like the discussion I think we are all having internally in ACAPS, in almost every organisation I know. What are you doing concretely?

I'd say we're just at the start of our journey on this. And we are looking to bring on board a range of different stakeholder groups to play the role of critical friend, to challenge us. And so if there's anybody who's listening to the podcast sitting there thinking, you know what, I would like to be part of that discussion. I would like to challenge their thinking and help MapAction to look at how to focus on locally led, to expand their volunteer model. Let me know, because we want to hear that diversity of opinion. We want to have those difficult questions.

Yeah, because it is an uncomfortable conversation, right? So anybody out there who wants to come and help decolonise MapAction, please step up.

Absolutely. Very welcome. And really looking to see how do we provide that added value? How do we maintain contact with, let's say a globally diverse volunteer pool set so that people feel part of MapAction? That's what struck me since joining. This sense of belonging, this sense of family support, knowing each other and knowing when you deploy into large scale crisis, you know how people react to work together and you can really support.

And have you discussed whether the volunteer model, which is a bit of a luxury, right? It's people with very good livelihoods who say, oh yeah, let me spend some of my spare time doing this as a hobby. Have you discussed whether going towards the global south, whether you need to actually pay people to get them into the shop?

Totally. And I don't think it's a one size fits all as we look at a globally diverse volunteer pool set. What works in one region may not work in another region. So how can we be adaptive and flexible to the context where we want to be working? And so really for us, I'd say over the next year or so is really exploring how to do this, challenging our thinking, looking at models, seeing how we would ensure that sense of engagement continues. But also getting a much stronger feel of geospatial capabilities that are out there. What exists in Southeast Asia might be very different to what exists over in West Africa, for instance. So understanding what that looks like at a global, regional, sub-regional level, and then adapting our business model to fit what is existing there. And if there isn't a strong geospatial community in a region, how can we work to support that developing and really ensure that that technical capacity catches up with other regions? But this is a real challenge for us looking forwards, and it is very different from who we were, who we currently are. But I hope in the next two, three years when we catch up again, and you're saying, how's it all gone? We'll be showing a very different model and you'll see that the skill sets, that diversity of individuals is very different now. And we won't be seen as that British focused volunteer organization, but a globally diverse community of practice, community of interest that capitalizes on geospatial capabilities around the world.

You spoke very passionately about the role that data can play in decision-making and we're meeting here face-to-face in Geneva, because we're both going to participate in the Humanitarian Networks and Partnership Week in the coming days, where you have called together a meeting of, I think, 10, 12 organizations somehow engaged with data. What are you trying to achieve by getting all of us together? And where do we need to focus to get data to be even more powerful in the sector?

Data information management is a sector in its own right, just like wash, shelter, food security. Those technical areas have a pre-existing coordination structure, a means for setting quality standards, learning about best practice, promoting that, supporting. We don't really have that on the day side. We've got the Global Information Management Working Group, et cetera. But coming from other organizations, information management was seen very much as a marketing, a comms tool. How do we raise the profile of data and information management so that it's taken seriously, that we are setting the standards and the expectations on the use of data, ensuring that tools are accessible, advice is accessible, coordinating rather than competing, collaboration, strengthening the profile of data in the sector, and really sort of looking at how do we make a step change so that data is used much more routinely in decision-making. If I look back at my operational career, I would say a lot of decisions were made based on gut feeling and previous experience. Could I justify it?

Did I have the data to justify it? No.

I went through exactly the same journey when I first started working with ACAPS. It was so humbling to have to think back through my operational experience and go, did we really know what we were doing? Were we actually data and evidence-driven? And there was a big resounding no, right? And I think for me, I really felt terrible and professionally humiliated actually by that, but I keep that with me because it helps me remember not to pretend that we're better than we are.

Totally. Absolutely. I look back and cringe internally thinking, gosh, I was taking decisions based on experience, but I didn't have the data to justify it. And I wouldn't want managers in the future to be in the same position.

So I'm with you 100%, but I'm going to push you anyways.

Oh, please.

Because for me, it's like, sure, yes, data standards, yes, information management. You haven't said analysis once, right? And isn't it naive to think that if we just get the right metadata and a proper data warehouse or whatever, you know, then suddenly magically decision makers are going to start using this data. What about analysis?

Yep. Analysis, core to that as well. So oversight from my side there, when I was talking about data, et cetera, I just took it for granted. Analysis was a part of that. There is the analysis, but there's also building capability of individuals to do the analysis, to apply the analysis to day-to-day work and to take decisions based on that.

And so how do you see map action? Do you see yourself as sort of the enabler that runs around and builds capacities, left, right, and centre, and, you know, gets better standards on information management. And then eventually, you know, evidence will somehow start driving decision making. Or are you also delivering products? Are you doing analysis yourself to actually influence decisions directly?

Absolutely. So we're doing a lot of work with regional disaster management authorities to support them, develop their use of geospatial, the data, the analysis, and then the application of that into day-to-day work. So that's a core part of strengthening there. As we move beyond emergency response, and we're just starting work now in anticipatory action, health programming, risk, et cetera, that will be looking very differently. How it's going to be utilized? I'd say watch this space. See how we engage with that. We're just starting those areas of work now. And we want to make sure that we're bringing in the strengths of our geospatial skills to further strengthen those areas. So this is a learning by doing, but also capitalizing on our strengths. So yeah, we have to really look at not just promoting data, data analytics, but how to take it and apply it into the real world. Because the data isn't in isolation from the context around you as well. There will be other operational constraints that mean actually, even though the data is saying this, safety and security may not enable you to do the best option.

But I think what I'm trying to get at is you work with a lot of partners. You come in with these fantastic technical capabilities. And I'm sure you get to know these partners very well.

And you can see probably some of the more technical staff being deeply frustrated that management is not using the data or that it's still politics driving everything. Do you at all engage at that level? Do you advise on how to actually, in a sense, manage up? Do you do anything for decision makers? Where are you on that?

Absolutely. So that was one of my first questions on joining MapAction. It's great to build the technical capability of data scientists, GIS specialists, et cetera, and really give them the skills. But if the budget holder, the decision maker, the person that decides on the staffing structure isn't bought into this and doesn't see the power of what geospatial data analytics can enable, then it's seen as a, it's nice to have, but not an essential.

Yeah, it's a show pony.

Absolutely. So for me, we have to be targeting country directors, regional directors, emergency response managers, the people that hold the budgets, who make the decisions, for them to understand and to be actively promoting the use of data in day-to-day operations.

And so who does that for you? Because if you take somebody highly, highly technical, a mapper at heart, you know, one of the, you know, is that the right profile to go into the director's office and say, let me just show you how to use this.

Absolutely not. So you need an operational experienced individual, someone that comes with an appreciation of running humanitarian operations, can talk from their experience as to what they've done and what they've seen that this can do. And so, for instance, on staff, we've got our head of emergency response. We have our program director, both of whom have a huge operational background to them. They're not geospatial specialists at all. So they talk the same language as a generalist, manager, director, etc. And they're not going to talk a lot of tech talk, you know, making it accessible, making that business case and showing what can be done. And that is something that I've been talking with the team about. We need to make that business case at different levels to get that buy in. Great. We're doing all of this work on developing technical capability. But if there isn't a shift in mindset from decision makers, budget holders, and with that donors as well, that donors also are open to having budget lines that is looking at data analytics and having the right people in place. That mindset needs to shift if we are really going to take things forward. And so this is an area of work that we are really exploring now as to how do we do that? And I would hope by when we bring the agencies together, we can talk about, well, actually, how do we start getting these decision makers to take this on board and take the fear factor out of data analytics and showcase what it can achieve? So making that business case, making it real, showing that it's not a theoretical discussion, but the real world applications.

Yeah, there's sort of two versions of that, the barrier against more use of data, right? One is what you just mentioned. People don't have the capacity to understand it. They are scared of tech. They're not very, they're not very fluent in these things. And then there's the other one, which is I don't want better data because it'll restrain me. I can't do what I just want. I can't just make up my own crisis that I can then solve. In your experience, is it a lack of capacity or understanding of data and information that is the barrier? Or is it simply that decision makers don't want data that doesn't fit what they want to do? Is it lack of accountability or capacity?

I think there's a lack of awareness coming from operational agencies. The basics were done, needs assessment and a very simple analysis done on that. But there was nothing ever deeper on what could be done with data, etc. It was very rudimentary, sort of a beginner's data analytics. I think there's a lack of awareness that leads to this reticence that people just don't know what can be done. And because the sector is moving so fast, keeping up with the options is also really tricky. Now, I wouldn't be advocating for operational agencies to all set up data analytic departments, etc. But organizations such as yourself at ACAPS and us, how can we be that service provision?

Yeah, I think my take on it and actually reflecting on what I just said, I think I would like to add, throw in a third option. It's not always that people are reluctant or that people don't have the capacity. It's simply also that they're too busy. But it is a very hard game. And if you can get away with still operating with a very sort of shallow snapshot done in the first weeks of the operation, then that's the easiest.

And there is an approach of good enough. And that starts from day one of a crisis. Good enough. Moving that incrementally up doesn't happen very much. So it remains very basic. Good enough.

Or I would say what's good enough in the first weeks is nowhere good enough after six months.

Absolutely. Absolutely. And it's not good enough after a month.

No.

But how do you do this incremental stepping up? What is good enough after one month, three months, six months?

But there I am probably a bit more on the side of, I think that different organizations need to develop their own capabilities. I think the role of agencies such as ACAPS and MapAction, H2H agencies, it is to create an enabling environment. But it's the bloody obligation of every single humanitarian actor who engages in an operation to know why they're there and what their take is on the humanitarian narrative here to be able to be accountable and justify what they do.

Totally. But having worked in the sector for 30 years, humanitarian staff are passionate, committed, want to make a difference, really want to make sure that the most at risk get the support they need it. But they're super busy. They're multitasking. They're juggling so much stuff that it's impossible to get everything done as they want. And how do we make it easier to access that support, those services, and make it more understandable?

Yeah, you're very much a carrot man. I'm probably a little bit more on the stick side of things. I think there needs to be a punishment for not knowing why you are in a crisis and how you're engaging and not having the capacity to actually adapt your programs as the situation change. And I think we have to insist quite strongly on organizations being able to account for what they do, why they do what they do.

Yeah, absolutely. Accountability, key. We've got to be accountable as to how we're spending the money, where it's going, who's receiving that assistance.And this is an area that has to be strengthened at the moment. Data and its use can really help to focus in and make sure that those funds are getting to the most at risk individuals. But there needs to be a pressure as well from donors to increase that accountability and that ability to justify the decisions that are taken, the targeting, the where, the who, the how, et cetera. And I don't think that level of robust questioning is there yet. And a lot of those decisions are still made gut feeling. This is what I think we could, should do.

Exactly. And so the million dollar question is, what is MapAction doing to change that?

So at the moment, there is a lot of work around building that awareness and the profile of geospatial work, translating the technical work into real world applications, meeting with as many people as we can to promote the use of geospatial, user case studies as to what it can do, working with regional networks so that we can then reach out to their networks, have those discussions on what are the problems that you're facing? Can we help you find a solution? Can we work with you over the coming months, develop this partnership and be there as a support to you, to your members, to ensure the highest quality humanitarian programming. And so at the moment for us is really expanding our reach, developing many new partnerships, stepping out of being seen as purely emergency response and getting the message out there that MapAction works across the entirety of the disaster risk reduction cycle. We're there to support. Tell us your headaches. Tell us your bottlenecks. Tell us what are your issues around data. And let's see if we can help you find the solutions to that. Easy to use solutions as well. There's always a lot of talk about innovation and the buzzword now, AI. To be honest, there's probably some really basic solutions that can be done as a starting point. But let's talk about it, explore it and see what we can find.

Yeah, so I do agree with you that sort of a solid craftsman's approach to these things is better than sort of happy clapping tech fetishism, if you want, which I think we see quite a bit. But and I also want to say it is slightly unfair to make you responsible for the state of play with respect to decision making in the humanitarian sector. But thank you for your answers.

I play my role in that. Having been a decision maker in those operational agencies and looking back with hindsight is really thought provoking. Yeah.

Yeah. Yes. And for me personally, I don't want to lose that sense of humiliation that I have when I think about it.

Absolutely. And we should be working to help the future decision makers, response managers to be in a better position to take those decisions because the amount of stress that goes with taking those decisions and having to justify with no real substance behind it really takes its toll on aid workers and puts that stress level up there. Everybody's looking at you to take a decision, usually at very short notice. And you try to take the best decision with the limited data or analysis that you've got there. And if it doesn't work out, then everybody blames you.

Yep. That's the job.

That's the job. But it doesn't need to be that extreme. It can be made easier, simpler, and just provide another tool in the toolkit for decision makers to draw on. So yeah, that for me is really important and something looking back, wishing that actually all these discussions were taking place 20 years ago.

Now, let's leave behind the decision making and let's actually dive into tech and where it's moving. 20 years ago, you were a hero if you showed up with a paper map. That doesn't play today. So what do you see in terms of technological development? AI, I think, is a piece, of course, also for or maybe especially for geospatial analysis. What are you tinkering with in the kitchen sink?

Let me preface this to say, I am not a technical specialist at all. So my technical colleagues will all probably be sitting there cringing on this.

You will be in trouble no matter what you say. So just have a go at it.

You know, the data sector is evolving rapidly. The use of Earth observation data, for instance, is growing at such a super speed that gives us access to much more data actually being able to slimline that down into useful data sets for decision making is something that I think we are discussing, debating as to how can we effectively use Earth observation data. Initial discussions on what does AI mean for us? How can that be done to simplify, to automate processes? But again, AI is a bit of a buzzword at the moment. I just noticed there's so many funding calls coming out for AI. Every meeting you look at, there's an AI section on it. But are we jumping forward too quickly and looking at what the future of tech can do before we get the fundamentals right? Before we're actually getting good quality data in place. We're trying to run before we're crawling in the sector. And I'd say, let's hold off on the tech side and let's focus on getting the basics in place before we really start looking at what technology innovation can enable us to do. A lot of data is at the national level. So broad brushstrokes of how situations look. Looking forward, we've got to be looking at much more local datasets because it's not a common situation across a country, different sub-regions, etc. How do we start getting that data in place of a good quality that will enable sub-national data analysis to be in place so that decisions can be made on the locale of where you're based, where you're working, etc. And that data doesn't exist at a super strong quality at the moment. So how do we start preparing for the future to make sure it can be utilized more effectively?

So really what you're saying is forget about AI, forget about all the fancy stuff. The innovation is more granular analysis.

To start with, I think as a sector that isn't used broadly across the sector or as broadly as we'd like to see it, let's address some of the foundational issues and get that strong enough before we start building up on it. If we make it accessible, if we make people understand what it can do and an appetite for bringing this into their day-to-day work, we'd start there. And over the years, we increase the quality and the breadth of what we do. But I think at times as a sector, we try to really sprint before we've got the basics in place. So let's not do that again. Let's learn from the past in the sector and make sure we're working to get that strong basis in place to build on going forwards.

Colin Rogers, I think that's a brilliant place to end our conversation. Thank you so much for coming on Trumanitarian. Thank you for letting me take the piss on map action, to be honest. But I only do that because I love you guys dearly. You are one of my favourite organisations in the whole sector. And so I hope I'm forgiven also for the one with the three socks.

Always. Absolutely. And it's been a real pleasure to have the opportunity to discuss with you Lars Peter. And thank you so much. And yeah, the three socks. I'm going to go away and find out who was that?