Loading summary
Transcript63 lines
- [00:11]
A
Welcome to Humanitarian Frontiers on the Edge. This is a place to learn about the art of the possible. Using technology in some of the most difficult environments in the world, assisting people in their most vulnerable time. Want to learn more? Let's dive in.
- [00:32]
B
Foreign. Hi everybody and welcome back to another episode of Humanitarian Frontiers on the Edge. Today we have got an amazing group of panelists. It's going to be a fun, fun discussion. Some friends from the past and some new friends and we're really going to talk about partnerships today. And we're when we talk about tech and we talk about utilizing technology, especially in this sector, in that we are not built as organizations, as humanitarian organizations, to really hold our own dev team, to really be able to bring the best and the brightest out of tech, because there are other organizations that do that and these are tech companies. And so today I'm really excited to bring both tech organizations, humanitarian organizations, dual hatted organizations as well that work in the development sector too and have us all together. And the lucky part about this is they're already partnering. So what this is going to really bring out, I think today is how partnerships work, how they're cultivated and how they catalyze the potential use of technology in the humanitarian sector. And so really want to welcome our guest. My first guest today is Fran Baker from Fran is with arm and if you don't know arm, you should because they're on the edge when it comes to computing and what's going on right now. Today we've got Shane o', Connor, the innovation manager at UNICEF that's here with us, based out of Stockholm. And Hovig Etymizian, one of my close friends from a long, long time ago and the head of innovation at unhcr. So welcome everybody.
- [02:15]
C
Thanks Chris.
- [02:16]
D
Great to be here.
- [02:18]
B
Oh, lovely. Fran, I want to start with you and just give you a chance to talk about what you do at ARM and your role and how this plays out in this partnership discussion we're going to have today.
- [02:30]
D
Yeah, sure. So I am director of Social Impact and Innovation at arm. And for people that aren't familiar, ARM is a semiconductor and software design company designing the chips that are powering a lot of our digital lives. So from small scale sensors, smartphones to supercomputers, we we're the industry's highest performing and most power efficient compute platform. And my role, leading social impact and innovation is connecting the best of what we provide from a technology perspective, our leading engineering expertise and our funding mechanisms together to deliver impact.
- [03:07]
B
Amazing. And Shane at UNICEF Innovation obviously has grown leaps and bounds over the last few years. I mean, to see what's happening in New York, to see what's happening in Stockholm, to see what's happening in all of your hubs that you guys have been able to put around the world. So I'd love to hear about what your role is and what UNICEF's doing in the innovation space.
- [03:27]
C
Yep, sure. Well, my role in the Office of Innovation is I lead a relatively small team, but hopefully a pretty fundamental team, the Frontier Tech team. So we underpin a lot of the work that goes on across the Office of Innovation and wider innovation and kind of frontier tech initiatives in unicef. So on my team we have AI experts, data science experts, blockchain experts, developers, open source digital public goods, and we kind of provide that sort of technical knowledge and strategic support to the rest of the organization. So that could be from, you know, providing input to UNICEF's AI strategy or helping design better performing models for predicting air quality.
- [04:16]
B
I love it. That's amazing. Super amazing, super, super spectacular to hear that organizations have that capacity inside them. So that's going to be really special to talk about today. Hovik, my friend, over to you.
- [04:28]
E
Yeah, thanks for inviting me again, Chris. And it's going to be almost 20 years in March with UNHCR. So we've grade in this sector and I lead a team, the innovation team of UNHCR which is spread across the world. We have less than 30 people now and our role is to be the engine of innovation for both refugees and our teams. So what we do is we basically call for ideas, select the best, fund them and we fund both refugee led organizations directly and UNHCR teams. And we work not only in collaboration between UNHCR teams and refugee organizations, but we're very keen on working with partners. So ARM is, we will talk about arm, I think extensively today about FRAN in particular, but also the ARM team from ARM to World Food Program and from the World bank to ilo. So kind of looking at solving complex challenges not alone, but in partnership with our clients, refugees and Swiss populations and the people who are all there to serve them. So that's a bit the role of my team. So we don't think of ourselves as innovators, but as people who are helping the rest. Innovate.
- [05:58]
B
Amazing.
- [05:59]
E
Glad to be here.
- [05:59]
B
Amazing. Yeah, great to have you here, buddy. So when we look at tech partnerships, I kind of bucket them in three buckets, right? The first bucket is your procurement sales partnership, which really isn't a partnership, it's more of a transactional relationship. Right. So that's kind of bucket one. The second bucket is pro bono support. We're going to give you some, some tech time. We're going to give you some tech and go, go forth and try to work it out yourself. And we might start charging you after a year or two, you know, so be prepared. And then, and then the third one is shared value. So coming with a mindset that we're going to work together, we're working together for a common goal. We think that our tech can solve a problem that you have and we're here to go on that journey with you. Shared value being we're going to charge you for it, but you're going to get a great rate because we know what you're doing and we still got to pay the bills. But on the other side, hey, look, you're going to get the best support that you can when you're doing this. And so those are my three buckets. And Fran, maybe you have a fourth. But, but I would love to hear from you from an ARM perspective. How, how do you look at these partnerships with organizations like UNHCR and unicef and, and how do you create that relationship?
- [07:21]
D
Yeah, so I think our partnerships with UNHCR and UNICEF are representative of the journey that we've gone on from going beyond philanthropy and standard CSR through to social impact and innovation over the last decade. So UNICEF are actually one of our first partners that we ever began working with 10 years ago now. So we've recently celebrated our 10 year anniversary. Working together, UNHCR represent how we've amplified that innovation journey by working with them for nearly four to five years. And really one of the joys that we get is working with innovation services within big organizations because they can really match us in terms of the way that they think, the speed at which they can move, the types of innovations they're coming up with or thinking about in order to serve the people that are hardest to reach quite often. So we've been building out our social impacted innovation approach to drive lasting change. Not be a, you know, kind of donor grantee model, but connect the things that are unique and have that additionality from an ARM perspective. So what can we uniquely contribute? We know it's in those three areas, our technology, our funding and our people. And we really believe that by combining those three things, that's where you have the biggest impact. But as we're the private sector organization in these partnerships, I think it's also approaching them with deep humility. So, so whilst we are the experts in particular areas. And whilst our engineers will be the leading minds on particular topics, we defer to our partners to be the experts in their fields. And I think it's that unique contribution of bringing those things together that really has that shared values and co creative approach that delivers the longer lasting success and learning from what doesn't work along the way. Right. Not just assuming that everything's going to be a perfect success immediately, nor that it's going to be something that you do once and it's immediately successful. It might take time, it might take 10 years, but you're going to have something longer lasting, more impactful that delivers impact across the board.
- [09:36]
B
Absolutely. No, that's really great. I mean Hovik, maybe just a question to you on this because how do you articulate that internally? You know, and this is for all of our other NGO and international organization colleagues that are out there who struggle with, on how to articulate this because they might just be viewing ARM as the private sector. So they've already got some sort of view on who the private sector is and what they're doing and how can you bridge. Bring that a little bit of technical knowledge, bring that technical knowledge in, be able to speak on behalf of an organization such as ARM to, to the other folks around the team and be able to show them that hey, this is really about creating good, working together with the private sector. I mean, because I think there's a lot of struggles that people have when we talk about these types of partnerships.
- [10:25]
E
Yes, Chris, and I think the struggle is in the, in the three buckets that you mentioned. And I would. Fran didn't answer that question. I'm going to answer to say ARM is in a fourth category and for now, hopefully not in the future when it comes to us on their own in that fourth category. And I'll take a moment to expect. So the three categories you mentioned, including the shared value, you said, well even in those shared value there is a kind of you use our technology and you know, you get discounts in the future. So there's, there's still a connection between the private sector company, the tech company and the organization in terms of the organization using that company's technologies. And I think you and I have spoken about this a few times in the past about that kind of the struggle of one, the first category where companies see us as clients so they sell us products. And then a lot of times the corporate social responsibility entry point is just an entry point for growing the business.
- [11:38]
B
For sales.
- [11:38]
E
Yeah, for sales. That's kind of the second category and the third one is, well, it's a sales light, so it's a bigger. And I think what was fascinating beyond just getting to know Fran, Rosalie and the team in ARM is that it was a breath of fresh air to get to know a company that doesn't have that. So there is no conversation about using ARM technologies. I don't recall ever having that conversation. And it's more about beyond funding, actually making decisions together on which projects are we supporting and then also getting valuable time of experts of arm, just the way Fran described it, to be part of solving the problems that refugees and our teams are facing. Now I think now I'm going to answer your question. We haven't faced much difficulties translating that internally. And the reason is because of the nature of the partnership, because the nature is in that fourth category and because we are very keen on bottom up innovation, meaning we are not trying to force any external solutions onto refugee organizations or UNHCR teams. Actually they design their projects, we select the best and then we help them implement what they think is the solution. So that's also a key component. I think the internal struggle from what I've seen in house and in other kind of agencies is when you're sitting in, let's say in our case in Geneva and you come up with a solution and then you want to, or you find a solution or a tech company comes to you with a solution and you go to Zimbabwe or to DRC and say, hey, we have this, do you want it? We don't have that at all. We are really agnostic. So I think that that is out of many reasons. That's why our partnership with ARM is growing in such a positive way because we are there to solve problems, not favor technologies and not push technologies onto problem owners. Basically. I spoke too much over to you.
- [14:04]
B
No, no, it's awesome. And Shane, I mean you've got a tech team sitting with you, right? And so now that relationship's going to be even more different than what Hovik's engaging with.
- [14:15]
E
Right?
- [14:15]
B
Because it seems to me that your engagement with ARM probably is going to look a little bit different. So maybe you could talk a little bit about how you've engaged because I mean, you look at Google, so we've got a lot of relationships. You know, a lot of organizations have relationships with Google. They go through the AI challenge, et cetera. Obviously Microsoft and their tech for good folks have been inundating everyone for many years on supporting their tools and they use a very different approach. We've Got Twilio, we've got Okta, we've got all these different organizations that are out there trying to do things for good. But, but since you've got your own tech team, you're, you're kind of unique from many other organizations in terms of, of, of of organizations. So how's that relationship go for you and what do you, what are the key factors that are in this partnership that truly matter for you?
- [15:05]
C
Yeah, it's actually something I've, I mean, obviously in preparation for, for this. Chris. I've been thinking about it a little bit more, but I've been thinking about it over the last while. So we're kind of in a moment of reflection. Ten years, UNICEF and ARM together. Like, I am not in the Office of innovation for the 10 years, unfortunately. So I haven't been part of the full journey, the full success, only the last kind of three or four years or so. But I have reflected over because I've had a lot of chances to work with fram, with Rosalie and Maureen and some of the other like technical people at arm. Like, for me it comes down to like. So we talk about shared values, but like it comes down to almost like people, the people that are involved and like, it is not an accident that ARM has become such a successful company. They really heavily invest in the best in class of people and they, I'm sure, have a wonderful HR program that manages to get like all the best graduates from all around the world and people who are driven to solve problems and really believe in technology as being something that can be transformative for people around the world, you know, ideally, I guess, for ARM in their sphere of work. But that translates very well to the people on my team and the people in unicef. Right. So the reason I am where I am at UNICEF is because I have a firm belief in the transformational potential for technology for UNICEFs work for children around the world. So I think there's that kind of. We talk about shared partnership, shared vision, but there's also that overlap in personality. So, you know, our AI team really believe that, you know, on device edge computing can really help with providing, you know, AI learning in Colombia in places where infrastructure is challenged and ARMS work in that area, you know, is bleeding edge is leading for that. So we're trying to solve the same problems with maybe a slightly different mandate, I suppose. So for me that's like really been the exciting part of my time working on the partnership with ARM is that we're kind of all the same team trying to solve problems for the betterment of people. Like with technology.
- [17:29]
D
Yeah, I would add to that as well. I think the relationships bit is so key. How do you have a good relationship? It's not an organization to an organization. It's the individuals within each of them that are communicating with each other on a daily basis, whether it's teams or the personnel directly. And we've been working together for a number of years. Organizations change, people come and go, but the main thing that sustains it is the relationships you build with each other. And having that shared understanding of what you're trying to do. And arm as an organization is fueled by partnership. So our impact approach mirrors our commercial approach, where our partnership model is bringing together the best of each organization. And so to Hovig's point, we look for where challenges surface organically. So the problem owners are the people that identify what the needs are. And then together we'll look at. Not for. Not just where there's a role for technology and AI, but firstly, if there's a role for technology and AI. So I often say technology is not always the answer, but when it is, it can be transformative. And it's in those places that we try and collaborate and partner with the innovation services of both UNICEF and UNHCR to support where we can with them as the sort of custodians of the problem owners in particular countries or regions.
- [18:55]
B
Absolutely. I, you know, it's. People come and go, I think, you know, you said that. And if it's. You said that too, Fred. And it's. It's a really. It's hard with partnerships. Go ahead, Shane.
- [19:09]
C
Yeah, but so it's like principles, right? So the people come and go for sure, but you have principles. If you look back to the like, because I did this. If you look back to the original quote from Arms then CEO about the launching of the partnership partnership with unicef, it holds true today. Technology should be used to create opportunity for all. I mean, full stop there. And that's how we work together again in different tracks, but coming towards the same ultimate aim. So there's principles that guide us. And the Office of Innovation, the venture fund that we have, has very strong principles around being open source, you know, not being like forcing solutions on people. This co creation. And I would say that like, and kind of Fran alluded to it there as well. Like we would like come with curated problems to be solved. We're not coming looking, you know, we really want to use AI because it's so hot right now. It would be great if we could use AI, that's not it. We're like, we think that we could use this technology to like, you know, improve the prediction of hazardous air quality in schools. Is this something that is interesting to you guys? Do you have something to like add to it? And invariably it's in the same space that ARM has expertise and interest. So yeah, principles are there as well, you know.
- [20:33]
B
Yeah, yeah, for sure, for sure. And Hofig and Shane, both of you in the UN system, right? Do you feel in the UN system that there is kind of a similar approach by the other organizations or. And you don't have to name names, right, but it is, is there a similar approach or you know, because there are innovation accelerators in other organizations, there are different ways. Hovik, you've got the refugee led, you know, work that you've been doing which is very much bottom up. The, some of the accelerators. Do a little bit more of organizations come with tech and then look to, to solve an issue in that way. But, but in terms of how you guys are seeing things, is there something that you think should be the standard across the whole UN system and the way that this is working so that it can scale and grow these types of partnerships?
- [21:30]
E
I think the, the challenge is
- [21:37]
D
we,
- [21:37]
E
we don't have that many in the tech sector that have the ARM approach. And this is not, I would say that even if we're not on a call with Fran, we also say that when we are actually talking with other tech companies, we talk about ARM with them to kind of eat the kind of almost sometimes a shaming moment where like, well, you know, this is the best practice we have. I think that the challenge we have is that in specifically tech innovation,
- [22:13]
B
most
- [22:14]
E
of the companies we deal with are about their technologies being used by us, which I think impedes our ability to
- [22:28]
A
really
- [22:30]
E
maximize the potential of these companies and maximize our potential to serve our clients. So I think that at least to me, the biggest struggle I've had with the tech sector is that it's not about most of the time co creation, it's about how we can use their technologies. And that limits here. If you don't have that many companies who are willing to actually be agnostic about the tech and work with you and, and put their brains and expertise towards the best solutions. You still want to work with all of these companies, but those partnerships have their limitations which then impacts the, you know, impacts the solutions that are developed. And we have many, not, not, not gonna name companies where there has been serious investments over a number of years of Adopting a certain technology because it was driven by the partner and millions of dollars invested. And then we have to change course because that was not the best choice. It was just because it was bound together with the partnership. So I think that's a bit, it creates a bit of a off situation in innovation where I would say actually the majority of those tech contributions are going into maybe not in the right direction. So. Yeah, so that's, I think that creates a bit of a, I'm not going to touch on the bottom up and top down approaches because you mentioned it. That obviously is different approaches within the UN system. But what I find common is that kind of. There has been a lot of talk in the last 10 years about the importance of partnerships with the private sector, but the talk hasn't matched the practice of really, truly life changing, groundbreaking partnerships.
- [24:27]
B
I mean, a question for me would be on the private sector partnerships, you know, ppp, whatever we want to call them, is that, is that the expectation setting I don't think has ever been right? I think that it's, it's that there's always been a lack of clarity from the humanitarian side of what they really want and also from the tech sector.
- [24:53]
C
Right.
- [24:54]
B
And that kind of goes into my third bucket again. Right. Of shared value of being able to say, you know, this is what we can offer you and this is why we're offering it to you. And this is our ethos and our values and the NGO saying, this is our ethos and our values, these are the people that we serve and this is, these are our guardrails for which we have to do things. And I don't know if that expectation setting has always been there. And Fran, when you guys started this initiative at arm, how, how did you set your, how did you set the ground rules? What were, what were your priorities, you know, on how you're going to engage and why you're doing what you're doing and what you're trying to achieve.
- [25:34]
D
Yeah, it evolved over time. I think as, as you were talking, I was thinking about how we won't have always got things right with any partners. And you learn and you evolve and you adapt and I think the changing circumstances, impact looks different on any given day. So for us it was about exploring a lot of different options and then realizing over time that actually we can uniquely contribute in those particular ways that I've mentioned through our technology, through our funding and through our people. How do we make each of those categories best practice or as close to best practice as we possibly can? And Then gradually filtering what and how we engage with programs or particular themes. So our themes, for example, are health, education, climate and nature because they cover a breadth of different areas that we think are critical. And then it's where technology and AI can intersect with those. So we've looked at this on an annual basis, as you might expect, but also iteratively. If a particular program that we're working on isn't working, or if there's a global change that means that that program's no longer fit for purpose, we adapt. And I think it is back to that humility point, that is we're willing to be led on what the biggest need is rather than direct what we think the biggest need is or that would best serve us. And that's where I think we've had the been able to have the greatest impact and been able to have the better practice activities. And Shane alluded to an example with UNICEF earlier, but something that we're, we've been doing in Laos with them on air quality monitoring, it always starts with the problem. The problem being that air quality is one of the leading causes of death in that region for under fives. Okay, what could a solution be? Well, if you don't know what the issue is, how can you address it? Perhaps deploying a range of sensors across the country might help to identify those better. For me, that whole program is a multi sector partnership led by UNICEF for a problem that matters to them. And the genius of it is to put those sensors in schools because then the measuring and air quality detection has become or can become part of students and young children's AI literacy skills. So it's that perfect intersection of education, health and climate and nature. So for us, that's AI at the heart of all of those issues. Bringing together the best of what each of our organizations can offer, sending our engineering talent to see firsthand what the challenges are being faced there and how we might contribute our technical expertise to that particular problem and deliver an impact for those communities. So I think it's the humility point. And always leading with the problem or being led by the problem as opposed to individual organizational requirements.
- [28:33]
B
Absolutely. And Shane, how do you lead? Right. Humanitarian organizations aren't usually trained to lead technology companies into our problems. And so how do you take that, for lack of a better word, that control? And how do you manage that on your side?
- [28:53]
C
Yeah, I mean, I wouldn't say control, but. And it like it speaks to the, the principle and the approach that, that like we have internally and how we work with our country Office teams. And that, that example that Fran expanded upon there in Laos, I mean that's coming from country office, like UNICEF country office. That, that wasn't me sitting, you know, in my chair in Stockholm coming up with that idea. Although I would love to claim it, but it wasn't me. Like, I'll be honest, I see us as like being more of a team together. So I'm working in service for my country office program colleagues. Right. So what they're trying to do, I'm trying to help them. I am not the only person that is an. So I'm titled innovation manager in unicef. But there are so many innovators across all of UNICEF in child protection, health, education, social policy in every country there's, there's innovators there. So like part of my role is to like provide the support to them to like, like have that innovation come to fruition. And like, to be honest, and again I'm, you know, I'm coming out the. After the first six years of the partnership with Fran and I think, you know, she said it's been a journey as well and I would, I'm benefiting from that in terms of now I'm able to work with Fran and the team there and like ARM and as a kind of a partner, as a team member towards solving the problems. And that's something that, as Fran was talking, I would think that is like something to highlight around these types of partnership is being in it for the long haul as well. Right. So it wasn't that, oh, after two years, we didn't quite get it right in these two years. Let's stop, let's go somewhere else, let's do, let's restart. It was really like doubling down and like having that kind of long term strategic vision which I think again reflects back to the underpinning principles probably of ARM and certainly of office innovation as well. But sorry, just to get back to the original point, yeah, like not so much leading but like you know, genuinely co designing and like working in a quite a nice way.
- [31:03]
B
I think that's, that's amazing because when I know of many partnerships in a lot of organizations through my time at HumanityLink where there was a shift change in the technology company, so they came in one year and said we really want to help all the organizations do this. And then what happened was something happened, a whole bunch of layoffs, a whole bunch of people left and the situation changed. The social impact merged with something else. And this is a consistent problem to have to manage with organizations. And I think that that creates reticence on the organization's behalf on engaging in these partnerships, albeit well beyond all of the other conversations that are going around with tech companies related to different crises around the world and supplying tech in these situations. So there's also that other kind of values issue that we deal with. But if we just stick to the thing about how tech companies are very iterative, right. And sometimes their leadership changes and so on and so forth. So hearing this, and this is more just a reflection, I think hearing this about ARM 10 years working together, staying the course, going through the ups and downs and I think that's something really important for other tech companies that are listening and tech providers that are listening to podcasts to really grab onto that. Right. This can't be. Impact is not seen in three months. Impact is seen over a long period of time and over a building of a partnership. So I think that's a really important point. One thing on impact. So we talked about LAO a little bit and I'm sure lots of other examples. But is there a difference in the way that the folks at ARM view impact and then Hovig yourself and Shane view impact or are you also designing those overarching sustainability impact goals together? How are you guys managing that? Maybe Hovik first over to you.
- [33:00]
E
I think it's, I think that impact, especially in innovation, but I would say within the humanitarian development world it's constantly working progress on how do we understand, articulate the impact of our initiatives. So I say that's not static, but I think what works well with, with arm. There's a few elements to this. One is that we a few years ago and in parallel to starting working with arm, we developed our bottom up monitoring and evaluation kind of mechanism. Each project has its own KPIs. We have an MNE and a monetary evaluation plan, work plan, a budget, kind of the boring parts, maybe the not so exciting parts of any project, but really making sure that every project is driven by its own declared intentions. And then we have that trickles up. So each project then speaks to a program. A program speaks to the wider goals of our innovation team. So I think that's one to kind of doing that homework really has helped to kind of the partnership on the decision making. So the governance structure, how do you make the decision on where the investments are being made? So each of our projects goes through quite a strenuous technical review. ARM colleagues are involved there and all the way to ARM colleagues sitting on our steering committees and making decisions on where the investments are going to go together. And, and the cool thing about this decision making process is that again, it's void of politics. ARM doesn't come in with ARM's priorities. Let's say when these decisions are made, we don't even have our own priorities. We say we want to invest in quality and impact. We don't want to make predetermined the areas that we're going to invest in. That is helping us also, I think achieve impact that maybe escapes when you predetermine the areas of investments as well. These are the strategic priorities of our organization. So we're going to invest in this and so that's one and then the two kind of. In our sector, one of our biggest Achilles heels is smart M and E, especially innovation. I have heard arguments that, well, innovation escapes M and E. So we, you know, we have a. Because it's innovative, then things can't be measured and understood. Well, then how do you prove impact? So I think those are my thoughts on how being agnostic, when you make the decisions on where you invest, being agnostic and focusing on quality, I think helps with impact.
- [36:11]
B
And Fran, how have you felt about the impact discussion? Right, because you still have a social impact kind of goal as ARM in some way, shape or form when you're coming in, right? There's an overarching theme. So to say a goal might not be very specific. And how do you, when you talk to one of these folks, Shane or Hovik, and you're trying to explain this is why we want to work with you. What, what are, what are, what are the words that you use, right. When you, when you're engaging with them? What's, what's the way that you're, you're, you're introducing yourself as Fran to them and is on.
- [36:48]
D
Yeah, that's, that's different for newer partners than it is for long standing ones because a lot of those conversations are evolving. But we actually undertook a big program a few years ago to make our social impact monitoring and evaluation as robust as we can, knowing that the parameters for social impact aren't necessarily as extensive as for environmental impact within the world of sustainability or sustainability reporting. And as part of that, we had a lot of ongoing, I would say, debates rather than conversations about whether reach is the right measure of impact. And it was really helpful actually to get very transparent and candid conversations with the likes of Hovig and Shane and others in their organizations based on reach not always being that right measure. And a lot of people want to, a lot of organizations want to have either. Well, quite often they want to have this very large number that they're aiming towards. But if that very large number is made up of a few people skimming a blog post, is that impact or is that just a number? And so we really critiqued ourselves with our impact measurement and tried to break it down in terms of what is what we can directly attribute to either our funding or any of our partnership work together versus what we might have indirectly contributed to by funding a foundational piece of work or sending an engineer on a particular supporting program, for example. So we really looked at that and tried to address the issues that either organization might have when reporting up on their impact measures. Because the driving force for us has always been doing the right thing because it's the right thing to do. There's another layer of being able to engage our people and driving that pride in the work that we're doing, knowing that they're working for an organization that cares about these types of things and then how we might catalyze some activities that then deliver additional significant changes. So it is, it's often an ongoing conversation, it's something that we've reviewed and assessed and tried to challenge ourselves on more and more. And quite often it's actually a combination of the two, like a global reach and a local depth perspective. So I've given you the example from Laos just now, but then there's also this overarching cumulative reach figure that we work towards, however, considering those challenges that we know that organizations have with that as a metric. So how can we make sure that we're doing both things and not doing them weekly, make sure that we're doing them really, really well? I think another aspect of impact measurement for us is how we can support the needs and the goals of organisations, for example, with UNHCR supporting their localization commitments. How is the organization or management of particular programs and projects led by James example, the UNICEF country office, or Hovig's example, refugee led innovators, how can we move that impact to be led by those particular problem owners and make that impact be their key criteria for success metrics?
- [40:25]
B
Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Shane. One of the things that always comes up for any partner working with technology, and not technology partner, but any organization working with technology is the sustainability question. Right? Because we are on project cycles as humanitarian organizations. Right? 12 month funding cycles for the most part, mostly innovations are six month pilot cycles, right. With the hope that you'll get, you know, six months later you'll get another funding grant to do the second pilot or whatever. A lot of MVPs, a lot of POCs, very few production level things that are, sorry, minimal viable products and proof of concepts for the new listeners and not many sustainable long term things. And I had an organization come to me the other day and said, okay, the main design challenge with whatever we build here, it has to be handed over to the government and be used by them in the future. And I was like, well okay, that's the most significant challenge. It's not that we can solve the problem, right? We can design the tech for you and everything that's there, but now handing it over to the government, integrating with their stack, integrating and training their staff to use it, they have to pay for it, they have to take the accounts. So from a sustainability standpoint, Shane, what are some of the tenets or some of the ideas that you guys try to bring in when you're designing your tools and working with partners as well that are at a high level of tech knowledge and sophistication? When we're talking about quantum, we're talking about even AI itself and we're talking about edge and being able to sustain that and so on.
- [42:03]
C
It's a good question. And as we were talking earlier about impact and how we measure impact, I was kind of coming to this a little bit myself, Chris, because, well, certainly for my work now, but like previously when I worked at a country office level, for me and I understand numbers, you need to have numbers to show impact, that's fine. But like real impact is kind of like long term sustainability adoption at the like local community, country level, whatever you want to measure it at and like, you know, ownership by the community that it's being hosted in, that for me is kind of, that shows kind of real long term impact. There's no magic bullet I don't think for like guaranteeing that. Like whenever you know, Fran and I are talking about like the next project that we want to work on together, it's not always in my gift to give an exact place where we're going to go and do it. And certainly it's not always our gift to give like it's going to be a scale long term like project. But you can however like put some things in place that at least set you up as best as possible to take advantage of those opportunities. And it's kind of principles again a little bit. And one of those principles that like works very well for us in office innovation and for UNICEF and for our partnership with ARM is being like open source. Right? So a lot of the solutions that we would invest in are open source, that really assists. It doesn't solve the problem of sustainability but it kind of removes a barrier to the solution, the product, the platform being more sustainable in given context. Right. So especially in resource constrained contexts, that will be something that we would do as a principal. Also, you know, we talk about designing with the user, right? So like working with a country office, not me coming up with cool ideas. You know, ChatGPT could do some amazing stuff, I'm sure. But really could it actually in, you know, in a, you know, in, in Burkina Faso, would it really be appropriate to start, you know, leveraging the wonderful ChatGPT tool to solve some of the problems that UNICEF is working with? Probably not. And that like, that focus, I think like can help us, help bring us towards that longer term impact and sustainability which really go hand in hand, I guess.
- [44:48]
B
Yeah, yeah, yeah, go ahead Fran.
- [44:51]
D
Yeah, and I think on that it's, it's to do with the local context. Right. So rather than saying this particular solution is going to be perfect and match all of the needs everywhere, it's very unlikely for that to happen. But if you have sort of a foundational compute or a foundational tool, it can be applied a different way or a different, in a different country. So I think is similar to the impact conversations about whether reach is the right metric. There's often a push for scale and scaling. What does that mean? Where are we talking about? In what context? So Shane's comment about Burkina Faso. Yes, you might be able to scale a particular innovation around the rest of the country, but will that apply just as well in Bangladesh? Not so sure. What are the local requirements? What are the local needs? And I think it's deeply understanding those. And it doesn't mean that every single partner in that ecosystem needs to deeply understand those needs, but it does inform the decisions on what are the appropriate technologies to use in any particular environment.
- [45:57]
B
Yeah,
- [46:02]
E
there's two, three thoughts here. One is that in terms of kind of internal struggle, but also in our ecosystem, I always say we don't have a romantic relationship with scale, but I find myself when I say that especially with certain senior level colleagues, et cetera, it's just for some it's very off putting because there is within our ecosystem this kind of awe for the new technology that is going to save the world and there's the fear of missing out and then this attachment to scale. People want to achieve scale immediately. So don't talk to me about these small initiatives here and there, talk to me about that One thing that's going to change the world. And I think our approach which has been bottom up has constantly had that friction with oh yeah, but this is only applicable to this location. And I say, well, if it solves the problem for 5,000 people, it's worth the investment period. And scale for me is if we have multiple projects like that across the world that are solving problems where they are, then that scale also it doesn't need to be that one solution that is applied. So I think that is a problem in our ecosystem. That's the fear of missing out and an attachment to is few technologies, usually the latest. So it used to be what blockchain and crypto, now it's generative AI, now it's agentic and we will see in a few years what will be the newest thing on the block and then everyone runs after it. So I think there is that element of, that kind of is disruptive. I think now on the issue of sustainability, I think that bottom up approach plus the partnerships element is key. And we do multi year so we don't force projects into six months cycles nor yearly cycles. Each project has its organic timeline. We have the headache of bringing resources to that project, not that they have to spend the money in six months. So what you end up having is that we have now a global project on using artificial intelligence for improving refugee status determination. It's quite a very important part of what UNHCR does. But we have the patience to one partner with governments, partner with experts in the field and giving ourselves the time to pilot, to learn from it, see where we're going to use AI for where we're not going to use AI for. That takes a few years. And when I say it takes a few years, sometimes some senior colleagues say, well we don't have that time. We need the solution tomorrow. So I think the sustainability, the answer part of the answer to sustainability, are you working? Are you solving real problems? One are the right people involved? Are you partnering up correctly with the right people? And do you have the patience to go through this and not force things into six months or eight months or kind of these synthetic time wise timelines?
- [49:17]
B
Yeah, absolutely. Shane?
- [49:20]
C
Yeah, as, as Hovig was talking there, I mean I was we're still thinking about like impact scale sustainability. I'm coming back to like Franz mentioned it once or twice about humility that arm bring to a partnership and to me like all that kind of circles in around, you know, arm driving like a global partnership platform as well. Right. So that is something that like ARM has been trying to do bring other people to the table in the same sort of principled way as them. It's going to feed into my wish as well. But like that's something I think that is like, you know, you could talk shared values as well, but principles with UNICEF at least we have something that's called AI in play and that's really like a partnership platform where we're trying to bring the best in tech to solve scalable problems for children, for unicef, of course. But that approach, that ethos, that humility, I think is certainly something that can help us all come towards something that is more scaled, sustainable for partnerships between tech firms and our ecosystem. I would say.
- [50:41]
B
Thanks, Shane, that's, you know, this has been such a rich conversation and I want to thank you all for, for coming on the podcast this week and, and I, we, we try to end, you know, because the, the whole idea behind this podcast is what is the art of the possible? We're not trying to define next steps. We're not trying to do anything. We're just trying to broaden the minds of everyone to think differently in the way that we do things. We know that last year was one of the toughest years for organizations around the world and trying to assist people in need that are more than they have been ever in any time with less money than we've ever had for, for the last 15 years. So it's a really tough time. And so bringing out this art of the possible, what can we do? What can we think about? I think is, is really the, the idea behind it. So we end with your, your wish, your low hanging fruit. What is that one thing? If you could change today to make things better for your work and innovating and using technology in the humanitarian sector, what would it be? So, Hovind, we'll start with you, my friend. What's your low hanging fruit? What's your big wish?
- [51:43]
E
I have two big wishes.
- [51:45]
D
One me too.
- [51:47]
E
One is that we as organizations who are working in some of the most difficult spots in the world, to use a word that Fran used, have the humidity to be really client centric and problem centric. So think less about the organization and more about the people we serve and the problems we're trying to solve. And then on the tech side, I wish that we have more of the types of Fran and ARM to work with so that we can solve these very complex challenges without being forced to use certain technologies.
- [52:26]
B
That's a big call out. That's a big call out to other technology Companies, I hope that they're listening. And so when they pick up the phone and they call you, they know, they know what to say. Shane, over to you, buddy.
- [52:37]
C
Yeah, that's good. All right, this sounds a little bit like a love in for Fran and ARM now, but for sure, genuinely I would love to see more of like minded people and firms, companies, leading technology companies, take the approach that ARM has taken over the last 10 years. I think that there has been huge impact there. I'm not sure it's a low hanging fruit, but it's definitely a wish. And I think we're leading by example there. And another one, if we're doing two, I would say maybe through that platform, if we can convene this sort of like community or ecosystem of people who are focused on solving problems, different organizations perhaps, but ultimately trying to use technology to improve the lives of people around the world.
- [53:35]
B
I love it. I love it. Fran, I'm going to let you. Okay, so what we have now is a stocking and something under the tree. That's what we have now for our wishes. So you're stalking it under the tree.
- [53:46]
D
Okay, so my first one is to remember that innovation is not just these big, massive inventions, but it's novel solutions, incremental changes implemented in interesting ways, and especially in the context that Hobig and Shane are operating in. That's critical to know. And my bigger ticket item is to use your influence where you are and join us. So you've said pick up the phone and call us, email us, join what we're building. And I'm very happy to always learn from others who think that we could be doing things in a better way.
- [54:28]
B
Oh, thanks, Fran. Listen, Hovig, Shane and Fran, thank you all for joining us today. It's been a great conversation. I thank you all for your candor, your ideas, your thoughts, and yeah, let's see what's next. And listen, you're all on LinkedIn. Your LinkedIn profiles will be shared in the podcast. So if you do want to reach out to anybody, please do and join ARM and all of the different humanitarian organizations that are trying to help people around the world in really highly vulnerable situations that need assistance today in a really tough environment. And let's partner together for tech. Thank you all and have a great day.
- [55:04]
C
Thank you.
- [55:05]
D
Thanks, guys.
- [55:14]
A
Thanks for joining us on humanitarian Frontiers on the Edge. If today's conversation sparked new ideas, new questions, or new ways of thinking about what's possible, then we've done our job. This podcast is brought to you by HumanityLink working at the intersection of technology and humanity to help deliver aid faster, smarter, and with greater accountability. Until next time, stay curious, stay grounded, and keep pushing the frontier.