National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 1 Introduction, Overview, and Themes of the Workshop
Suggested Citation:"2 Defining the Challenges of Coordination." National Academy of Engineering. 2012. Using Data Sharing to Improve Coordination in Peacebuilding: Report of a Workshop by the National Academy of Engineering and United States Institute of Peace: Roundtable on Technology, Science, and Peacebuilding. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13513.
×

2


Defining the Challenges of Coordination

The capacity of technologies to gather, sort, and manage data has undergone rapid advances. Yet coordination among government and nongovernment actors in peacebuilding remains a challenge, largely because of the human factors involved in data sharing. Once shared, data can no longer be controlled, and so the problem is not technical but a matter of trust. That trust is based on the capacity to negotiate shared goals, processes, and values for cooperation. The first session of the workshop discussed the ethical, cultural, and social obstacles faced by peacebuilding organizations in adopting technologies to break down the information silos in which they work.

A CLASH OF CULTURES

Tremendous progress has been achieved over the past 20 years in improving the sharing of information among organizations involved in peacebuilding, said Ambassador Robert Loftis, Interagency Professional in Residence at USIP. But even after a decade of experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, and more than two decades of peacebuilding activities since the fall of the Berlin Wall, challenges of coordination are still prominent.

A major contributor to these challenges, Loftis explained, is that peacebuilding is marked by a clash of cultures. Military, civilian government, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) do not have the same immediate

Suggested Citation:"2 Defining the Challenges of Coordination." National Academy of Engineering. 2012. Using Data Sharing to Improve Coordination in Peacebuilding: Report of a Workshop by the National Academy of Engineering and United States Institute of Peace: Roundtable on Technology, Science, and Peacebuilding. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13513.
×

goals and timelines. In many cases, they do not even speak the same language. For example, to the military, “coordination” means the ability to direct; to civilian organizations, it means consultation and consensus; and to NGOs, it means avoid contradictory activities or—more positively—sharing information. These differences can be strength, in that different organizations bring different perspectives to a problem, but unity of effort may be an elusive goal.

Some of these challenges can be addressed by institutionalizing and formalizing relationships, Loftis said. For example, a mechanism such as the Civilian Military Relations Working Group in Nonpermissive Environments, which brings together a variety of organizations for discussions every few months, can provide a framework for cooperation. But such mechanisms are means to an end and not ends in themselves. They are typically built on personal relations that do not necessarily carry over as personnel change. Personal relations and trust must therefore be continually refreshed and renewed. A relationship that worked in one context is not guaranteed to work in another, even with the same individuals. And as great as the challenges are in a purely American context, they are multiplied many times over in multinational or multilateral environments.

Data sharing can be useful in building relationships and trust, Loftis concluded. It can start on a small scale and gradually expand as trust and experience build. But assumptions and expectations about the use and distribution of data must be made explicit early, some data will be easier to share than others, systems have to evolve over time to be effective, and data sharing is no substitute for critical thinking and communication.

DATA SHARING IN CONTEXT

To understand the challenges of information sharing, it needs to be seen in the context of the broader structure and experience of civilian-military relations and civilian management of humanitarian, development, and peacebuilding activities, said Randy Tift, senior policy advisor in the World Vision US International Programs Group. For NGOs, information sharing occurs along a spectrum of involvement, from information gathering and needs assessment to the use of information for the delivery of aid or services. As an example of the latter, Tift cited the earthquake in Haiti: NGOs responded to demands from the UN, the United States, and the host government for information and coordination, resulting in a much greater degree of donor coordination.

Suggested Citation:"2 Defining the Challenges of Coordination." National Academy of Engineering. 2012. Using Data Sharing to Improve Coordination in Peacebuilding: Report of a Workshop by the National Academy of Engineering and United States Institute of Peace: Roundtable on Technology, Science, and Peacebuilding. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13513.
×

Tift focused on two areas: the security of NGO staff and the people they serve, and community acceptance of NGOs. He noted that information sharing can be a powerful determinant, for better or worse, of security. For that reason, as spelled out in World Vision’s policies on information sharing and liaison arrangements, the organization actively seeks to sustain open and direct (or indirect) dialogue with militaries and other armed groups in all circumstances, always with the objective of protecting civilians and enhancing mutual understanding of roles and mandates.

World Vision also establishes a mechanism for liaison with military actors in situations where it shares operational space with such groups. Liaison may take place through a coalition of NGOs, established lines of communication maintained by the UN, or direct communication when appropriate. Liaisons need to be transparent to all stakeholders and maintain a clear distinction between armed actors and NGO workers.

In humanitarian operating environments, World Vision and military or police personnel need to maintain a mutual understanding of objectives, roles, activities, and principles, said Tift. World Vision seeks to engage in ongoing dialogue with the military and police, with a view to promoting adherence to international humanitarian law and other human rights instruments and to increasing the military’s understanding of the roles of humanitarian organizations.

World Vision recognizes that in some cases military and international police actors are in a unique position to provide data about specific humanitarian needs. In cases of extremely vulnerable populations for which data are lacking, World Vision and other organizations have sought out this information. However, the information has to be triangulated with that from other sources to confirm its reliability. The data have to appear, without reasonable doubt, to address a humanitarian imperative. Military or armed police contingents should not be able to gain legitimacy simply because they have a relationship with an international humanitarian organization.

The same considerations apply to data flows in the opposite direction, Tift said. To maintain credibility with local organizations and individuals, NGOs cannot appear to be gathering intelligence for the US government or to be functioning as agents of government security operations. NGOs depend on being perceived as impartial, independent humanitarian organizations. Moreover, to be effective, it is critical that NGOs be viewed by host country leaders as trustworthy, above reproach, and committed to addressing underlying causes of poverty and injustice.

Suggested Citation:"2 Defining the Challenges of Coordination." National Academy of Engineering. 2012. Using Data Sharing to Improve Coordination in Peacebuilding: Report of a Workshop by the National Academy of Engineering and United States Institute of Peace: Roundtable on Technology, Science, and Peacebuilding. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13513.
×

Coordination with the US military or other armed actors, if performed on the basis of NGO independence and impartiality, does not necessarily compromise an NGO’s acceptance by local communities, Tift said. Indeed, it may help to ensure the effective delivery of aid to victims of poverty and injustice in a complex emergency situation. Enabling NGOs to act independently, even when implementing programs funded by the US government, is not only necessary but makes the achievement of US strategic objectives much more likely. NGO independence does not bind NGOs operationally to security imperatives but rather strengthens US security by addressing root causes of insecurity, according to Tift.

Humanitarian organizations can learn much from each other, Tift concluded. As part of this learning, commitment to better coordination would bring greater unity to NGO initiatives.

COORDINATION IN PEACEBUILDING

Even with coordination among organizations, peacebuilding can be effective or ineffective depending on the context and on how coordination is approached, explained Susanna Campbell, Visiting Scholar at the Saltzman Institute for War and Peace Studies at Columbia University.

Peacebuilding is difficult, she said, and the determinants of peace—even the definition of peace—are not fully understood. Therefore, simply combining the hypothesized elements of peace through coordination will not ensure success. Coordination needs to be aimed at specific problems that stand in the way of peace.

Campbell described several ways in which coordination can lead to ineffective peacebuilding. It can decrease flexibility and the capacity to adapt strategies and approaches, especially if organizations lose touch with the context in which they are working. It can focus attention on other international actors rather than peacebuilding problems that must be solved. Where data are not available on the effects of peacebuilding activities, coordination can lead to uninformed decisions. Coordination efforts can compete for funding with other activities, including those more directly focused on peacebuilding, and can overload organizations’ already full agendas.

However, Campbell continued, coordination also can contribute to effective peacebuilding. It can direct attention to peacebuilding efforts that emerge from the bottom up rather than from top-down directives, especially to the extent that such efforts aim to solve immediate problems. It can serve as a forum for stakeholder dialogue and break down cultural barriers

Suggested Citation:"2 Defining the Challenges of Coordination." National Academy of Engineering. 2012. Using Data Sharing to Improve Coordination in Peacebuilding: Report of a Workshop by the National Academy of Engineering and United States Institute of Peace: Roundtable on Technology, Science, and Peacebuilding. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13513.
×

between organizations. And coordination can allow organizations to work in a complementary fashion to solve the problems at hand.

Campbell emphasized, as did Loftis, that coordination is a tool, not the end goal of effective peacebuilding. It therefore needs to be judged by intermediate measures such as the focus of coordination, who is involved, and what actions result. At the most basic level, coordination can prevent duplication of activities. At a more ambitious level, it can enable joint action. Assessments of the impact of coordination need to keep these different objectives in mind, and should also take stock of the effects of peacebuilding on the people who are the subject of those efforts.

As one element of coordination, data sharing can prevent duplication and increase the participation of stakeholders who are not traditionally included. Data sharing also can support informed discussions by providing information about outcomes, thus enabling programs to evolve based on their impacts. In this way, organizations can see how a situation is changing and adjust their actions accordingly.

DISCUSSION

During the discussion period, the three speakers and other workshop participants explored the varied challenges to data sharing and coordination in peacebuilding. Tift reiterated that some forms of coordination can actually lead to conflict, such as when they create a perception of alliance with a belligerent party. Some forms of data sharing or other kinds of collaboration with the military or other government agencies can be appropriate, Tift acknowledged, but not if they undermine humanitarian objectives. As an example, he cited a case in Afghanistan where World Vision was asked, as part of a US government grant, to retarget the beneficiaries of its aid to serve counterinsurgency objectives. World Vision refused to do so, as did several other NGOs, which led to a dialogue that ultimately changed the policy.

Campbell observed that even when data sharing is beneficial, it can be difficult to do systematically. For example, NGOs are more effective if they share data among themselves, and they can do so through such means as the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). But once peacebuilding starts, OCHA tends to recede into the background, and no single organization is charged with collecting and disseminating information. Even when data are shared, she continued, the level of detail often is not sufficient to achieve effective coordination. Furthermore, data on impacts or outcomes are exceedingly scarce.

Suggested Citation:"2 Defining the Challenges of Coordination." National Academy of Engineering. 2012. Using Data Sharing to Improve Coordination in Peacebuilding: Report of a Workshop by the National Academy of Engineering and United States Institute of Peace: Roundtable on Technology, Science, and Peacebuilding. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13513.
×

To deal with these problems, Campbell suggested that much more analysis be done of the institutions that are the focus of change. Who are the key players, what needs to happen, and what systems need to change? Once this analysis has been done, incentives and motivations need to be created to foster change. Then the effectiveness of these interventions needs to be measured. “Was this the right approach? If not, what approach might work better?” Military culture is more amenable to evaluation than is the development community, said Campbell, but in either case representative stakeholder dialogue focused on outcomes can yield the information needed to adapt and learn.

Tift identified another missing ingredient: effective policy dialogue among organizations, especially between NGOs and civilian agencies in the US government. He cited several cases in which policies with a major effect on NGOs were disseminated by US government agencies without consultation with the groups most affected by those policies.

Loftis pointed to some of the deeper problems with measuring impacts. Individuals and organizations want to have an impact and often interpret change as a direct consequence of their activities. However, they cannot know all the factors that came into play. In complex and quickly changing environments, it can be very difficult to determine causality—that a particular action had a particular outcome. Establishing a track record over time can point toward effective action, but evaluation remains a difficult task.

Kevin Brownawell, interagency professional in residence at USIP, observed that organizations often have different ideas of what data to collect. Even different agencies in the US government focus on different aspects of conflict situations and may request different kinds of information from the NGOs with which they work. Conflicts can be avoided by planning for data collection at the beginning.

Gregor Bailar, retired chief information officer for Capital One Financial Corporation, commented on the similarities between the problems discussed in the workshop and the challenges facing large and innovative companies. They, too, encounter problems caused by rigid strategies, lack of coordination, and false confidence in strategic planning, and they, too, benefit from stakeholder dialogue, bottom-up coordination, and organizational integration. Agile approaches to planning and problem solving work well in both the private and public sectors, he said.

Campbell noted that all organizations have difficulty with behavior change, in part because they learn through re-established routines—“Organizations learn what they already know.” Therefore, one way to change

Suggested Citation:"2 Defining the Challenges of Coordination." National Academy of Engineering. 2012. Using Data Sharing to Improve Coordination in Peacebuilding: Report of a Workshop by the National Academy of Engineering and United States Institute of Peace: Roundtable on Technology, Science, and Peacebuilding. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13513.
×

what institutions learn is to change what they know. If the military wants to engage in peacebuilding, it needs to bring in people who are familiar with peacebuilding activities and make peacebuilding a priority in the military culture. In this way organizations can adapt based on what they learn, though this typically works best in smaller and more agile organizations. In larger organizations, change can occur in pockets of the organization that encourage adaptation and learning.

Finally, Sheldon Himelfarb, director of the Center of Innovation for Science, Technology, and Peacebuilding at USIP, asked about the benefits of transparency. In the Facebook era, an emerging paradigm may be to default to the release of information so it can be used by others. Campbell responded that transparency would be “a huge step forward” but does not necessarily address the full range of problems.

Loftis also cited the problem of too much information. Part of the challenge, he said, is to filter meaningful from meaningless information and to synthesize information in ways that are useful.

Suggested Citation:"2 Defining the Challenges of Coordination." National Academy of Engineering. 2012. Using Data Sharing to Improve Coordination in Peacebuilding: Report of a Workshop by the National Academy of Engineering and United States Institute of Peace: Roundtable on Technology, Science, and Peacebuilding. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13513.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"2 Defining the Challenges of Coordination." National Academy of Engineering. 2012. Using Data Sharing to Improve Coordination in Peacebuilding: Report of a Workshop by the National Academy of Engineering and United States Institute of Peace: Roundtable on Technology, Science, and Peacebuilding. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13513.
×
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"2 Defining the Challenges of Coordination." National Academy of Engineering. 2012. Using Data Sharing to Improve Coordination in Peacebuilding: Report of a Workshop by the National Academy of Engineering and United States Institute of Peace: Roundtable on Technology, Science, and Peacebuilding. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13513.
×
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"2 Defining the Challenges of Coordination." National Academy of Engineering. 2012. Using Data Sharing to Improve Coordination in Peacebuilding: Report of a Workshop by the National Academy of Engineering and United States Institute of Peace: Roundtable on Technology, Science, and Peacebuilding. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13513.
×
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"2 Defining the Challenges of Coordination." National Academy of Engineering. 2012. Using Data Sharing to Improve Coordination in Peacebuilding: Report of a Workshop by the National Academy of Engineering and United States Institute of Peace: Roundtable on Technology, Science, and Peacebuilding. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13513.
×
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"2 Defining the Challenges of Coordination." National Academy of Engineering. 2012. Using Data Sharing to Improve Coordination in Peacebuilding: Report of a Workshop by the National Academy of Engineering and United States Institute of Peace: Roundtable on Technology, Science, and Peacebuilding. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13513.
×
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"2 Defining the Challenges of Coordination." National Academy of Engineering. 2012. Using Data Sharing to Improve Coordination in Peacebuilding: Report of a Workshop by the National Academy of Engineering and United States Institute of Peace: Roundtable on Technology, Science, and Peacebuilding. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13513.
×
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"2 Defining the Challenges of Coordination." National Academy of Engineering. 2012. Using Data Sharing to Improve Coordination in Peacebuilding: Report of a Workshop by the National Academy of Engineering and United States Institute of Peace: Roundtable on Technology, Science, and Peacebuilding. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13513.
×
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"2 Defining the Challenges of Coordination." National Academy of Engineering. 2012. Using Data Sharing to Improve Coordination in Peacebuilding: Report of a Workshop by the National Academy of Engineering and United States Institute of Peace: Roundtable on Technology, Science, and Peacebuilding. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13513.
×
Page 14
Next: 3 Overcoming Challenges to Sharing Information »
Using Data Sharing to Improve Coordination in Peacebuilding: Report of a Workshop by the National Academy of Engineering and United States Institute of Peace: Roundtable on Technology, Science, and Peacebuilding Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $30.00 Buy Ebook | $23.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

On May 23, 2012, the Roundtable on Technology, Science, and Peacebuilding convened a workshop at the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) to investigate data sharing as a means of improving coordination among US government and nongovernment stakeholders involved in peacebuilding and conflict management activities. Using Data Sharing to Improve Coordination in Peacebuilding:Report of a Workshop by the National Academy of Engineering and the United States Institute of Peace: Roundtable on Technology, Science, and Peacebuilding addresses the following question: What needs must a data sharing system address to create more effective coordination in conflict zones and to promote the participation of federal agencies and nonfederal organizations in Peacebuilding?

In addition, the workshop served as a means to obtain feedback on the UNITY system, a data-sharing platform developed by the Department of Defense (DOD) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The Roundtable was established in 2011 as a partnership between USIP and the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) to make a measurable and positive impact on conflict management, peacebuilding, and security capabilities by bringing together leaders from the technical and peacebuilding communities. Its members are senior executives and experts from leading governmental organizations, universities, corporations, and nongovernmental organizations.

Its principal goals are: 1. To accelerate the application of science and technology to the process of peacebuilding and stabilization; 2. To promote systematic, high-level communication between peacebuilding and technical organizations on the problems faced and the technical capabilities required for successful peacebuilding; and 3. To collaborate in applying new science and technology to the most pressing challenges faced by local and international peacebuilders working in conflict zones. The Roundtable is strongly committed to action-oriented projects, and the long-term goal of each is to demonstrate viability with a successful field trial. The Roundtable has selected a portfolio of high-impact peacebuilding problems on which to focus its efforts: 1. Adapting agricultural extension services to peacebuilding, 2.Using data sharing to improve coordination in peacebuilding, 3. Sensing emerging conflicts, and 4. Harnessing systems methods for delivery of peacebuilding services.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!