Integrate changes
When you have identified your information needs, you should look at how to meet those needs. MFIs currently integrating SPM have opted for one of three ways of doing so:
1. Extract information from existing sources.
The first, and most cost-effective, approach – using the information you already have – involves extracting data from sources such as the loan application form, targeting and performance tools, exit surveys, impact assessments, and many others, in order to track social objectives.
Table 6.3 shows some common examples of potential information sources. Once the management team knows what information is currently available, they can make an informed decision about what else they need.
| Administrative systems | Client information | Organisational information |
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
Source: Imp-Act Consortium SPM training course
2. Improve upon existing technology.
Some MFIs may stop at the first option above. However, after further investigation, management may realise that the social data being collected is inadequate, or poor quality. Improving the current system would probably take a fair amount of human resources (compared to option 3 below or a complete overhaul). You might decide that certain data no longer needs to be collected, which can save on staff time.
Improving MIS – the experience of the Micro Development Fund (MDF) in Serbia
One of MDF's first tasks around SPM was to review its current MIS’ ability to track and report on social performance. The review identified a gap in effectively tracking client income levels over time. MDF collected indicators around consumption level and poverty status. However, the MIS was not designed to track what happened to a client between the first loan cycle and subsequent loan cycles.
The information was in the MIS; but the only way to analyse the data was to extract samples and analyse each case individually – a time-consuming process.
Ultimately, MDF decided to analyse data for a small sample of clients, as this was the only way to produce crossover reports, with these technical limitations. They decided to take a sample from the current system in order to produce immediate results, and to avoid incurring significant costs at this stage. For more efficient reporting options with long-term effects, they would need to upgrade the existing MIS.
3. Build on the existing technology platform.
Some MFIs find that their current system and processes simply cannot support all the identified social performance needs. In these cases, they decide to add new tools, such as the Grameen Foundation’s PPI, on to the existing MIS. This involves significant re-engineering of processes, taking up significant staff time, and may also require external technical assistance in the implementation phase (as well as training time for field staff).
If adapting the current technology platform or building add-ons is too difficult or costly, you could consider setting up a smaller, separate database to track social performance. You need to weigh up the benefits of starting from a blank template (thereby being able to add features not present in the existing MIS) with the potential downside of trying to maintain multiple datasets. There are four main potential disadvantages:
- Separate, unlinked databases limit the extent to which you can correlate data.
- Databases that are fed from different sources for different purposes often duplicate certain data, such as a client’s name or address. This may lead to problems with merging databases later on.
- Separate databases in separate departments can result in departments thinking in terms of ‘theirs’ and ‘ours’, rather than all data being ‘ours’.
- Separate databases are not conducive to the core aim of SPM, which is to integrate a social lens into existing operations.
We therefore recommend that you try to integrate social performance data into the main database. But you may want to create a separate database as an interim solution before adapting your current MIS. If you decide to do so, ensure that ‘linking fields’ (such as a client ID number) are incorporated, so that the new system can talk to the existing one, allowing you to make use of integrated datasets on clients or loan products.
4. Where can you find help to adapt your MIS to SPM?
Redesigning or modifying the technology platform can seem overwhelming, especially when faced with technical and financial constraints. Your MFI peers, regional networks and other support organisations could be a good place to find help and guidance. CGAP (the Consultative Group to Assist the Poor) also has an Information Systems Fund that can provide up to US$15,000 for a consultant to help improve the management and reporting of social performance data.
5. What does it cost to modify your MIS for SPM?
Adapting your MIS to SPM will probably be the most costly and lengthy undertaking, compared with other operational areas. But it is difficult to accurately estimate the costs of integrating SPM into the MIS system. Notwithstanding this difficulty, it has been estimated that a robust SPM review and resulting changes to the MIS could cost US$10,000–$20,000, not counting staff time.
CRS’s MISION project helped FINDESA to adapt its MIS system for approximately US$40,000. For ongoing expenses, NWTF in the Philippines found that integrating the PPI into its MIS cost approximately 1.4 per cent of its annual operating budget, or US$0.50 per client per year. The Grameen Foundation has approached the issue by creating an information system (Mifos) that incorporates a survey module directly and allows for extensive flexibility in incorporating new data.