In global health and development, the best laid-out plans rarely go as planned. Take the evaluation project that I’m managing, for example. It seemed so simple to me: spend a week or so collecting hard copies of client data from almost 50 sites across Malawi, spend two weeks entering the data into an electronic database, spend a month cleaning and analyzing the data, and then write up the results in time for the Christmas holiday. In an update just one month ago, I realized that the process of data entry more complex, though hopeful that it would be completed during a two-week leave I took in November. I’d envisioned that upon my return, our team of three would have completed data entry and we would start the process of data cleaning and the “fun” stuff: analyzing the data and seeing program results. What I came back to nearly gave me a heart attack; our team had actually backtracked due to “technical difficulties.”

My initial response was disbelief, and then frustration (especially since I had to relay the lack of progress to my boss, my bosses boss, and a director at headquarters). But after two days of meetings, phone calls, and sifting through piles of data, I realized that all the frustration in the world wouldn’t solve the problem; I had to develop a plan.

Lesson One: communication is key. I am more convinced than ever that in life – professional or personal – communication is a major proponent of success. In my current position, this is no different. There are so many people involved in the evaluation: community health workers, who are intimately familiar with the data they collect; in-country management staff, who oversee the community health workers and manage national-level data; headquarters staff, the “top dogs” who make international decisions that affect the entire organization (and who also set the deadlines that affect our work at the country level). There has also been a lot of fluidity: management staff who spend alternating weeks in the field, and community health workers, who are often meeting with clients; the resignation of a colleague who was co-managing this project; the brief leave of the sole data entry officer. With these circumstances, it’s no wonder that communication is crucial.

Lesson Two: development is the way forward for health. The transition from paper to computer records has been a topic of debate in the context of the developing world. The challenges against it are numerous – inconsistent power, high costs, belief in the lack of technical capacity – but the challenges that arise from not implementing such a change are numerous as well. Since the beginning of October, we launched our attempts to collect data, thinking the process would be quick: contact managers to make photocopies of logbooks with hundreds of clients’ information, and send those copies to our head office in Lilongwe. But between slow transport, illegibility of the copies, and lost data, a simple process has become challenging. I’ve spent hours on the phone, speaking with community health workers in my sad attempt at the local language of Chichewa. I’ve requested that sites resend data when its quality seemed compromised. I even made a six-hour trip to three sites just recently since we couldn’t get in touch with them by phone, hand-copying client information to ensure data accuracy. I kept thinking that if we used computer databases and invested in training personnel here, an expensive investment but with many returns, we could have avoided several of these challenges.

The Verdict: Overall, I am proud to say that by the end of this year, we would have collected all necessary data (albeit a month behind schedule). I continue to learn a lot through this data management process. I can’t say that I see a future in this – nor would I have expected I’d end up here post-Master degree – but it is a learning experience that a classroom couldn’t teach me. While I continue to learn about then non-profit world and working with colleagues from very different backgrounds, I’m also learning about myself: about the way I directly and indirectly communicate, about the way I handle stressful situations, about the role of leadership when there are still people above you. I’m learning that I am a creative problem-solver – that there is no such thing as “no” in my rulebook – but that I also need to be creative in the way I interact in places where that same mode of thought is not a norm. And perhaps most importantly, I’m learning to accept that while plans are important, flexibility and adaptability in a global setting are just as necessary. An unexpected lesson from a data management assignment, but an eye-opening one nonetheless.

A version is also posted at: http://ghcorps.org/blog

Today on the 23rd annual World AIDS Day, I’d like to write about Bono. Not Bono the musician, or Bono the businessman, but Bono the humanitarian, his most controversial hat. Since he began his career as an activist for various causes pertinent to Africa in the mid-1980′s, he has been both widely hailed and widely criticized; and I will argue that both are viable and warranted.

Let’s start with the good part: the fact that Bono’s lobbying campaigns, concerts, publicized visits to countries all over Africa, and other relevant endeavors have done some good, emphasis on ‘some.’ Like him or not, you can’t argue that his work over the past 25 or so years has brought a lot of necessary attention to very big problems facing Africa. One can argue the implications of the attention, but we’ll save that for the next paragraph. He’s helped set up and participated in various projects to fight AIDS, Malaria, Tuberculosis, and poverty, most notably the Live Aid concert series, the Global Fund, and Project(RED). Again, the merits of all of these organizations is contestable, but I’ll get to that. Finally he’s given millions of his own money to fight disease and poverty across Africa all in the process of making it a continent the general populace of the world can no longer ignore. That last bit is definitely worth at least a few brownie points.

Now on to the cons of Bono’s humanitarian efforts in Africa. First of all, the attention he has brought to the continent has been, for the most part, focused exclusively on the diseased, impoverished, and even corrupt parts of the continent. This negative image is something the continent can’t seem to shake, and it’s hurting as a result. Frankly speaking, you don’t need data, research, or personal experience on the continent to form an idea of Africa as a desolate place full of disease, poverty, and corruption. All you need is a TV set. Now I know a lot of this is the result of negative media attention as well, but like I said earlier, Bono’s trip are highly publicized and he hardly showcases Africa as the beautiful, diverse, and progressive place it is striving to be. Second, regarding his various campaigns in which he’s been formally involved, all it takes is a Google search to see that the ONE Campaign and the Global Fund in particular have come under scrutiny for missing donations and corruption allegations, and acting solely as a vehicle for celebrities to revamp their image, especially after a scandal. (See Brad Pitt’s involvement with the ONE Campaign not long after his image was dealt a harsh blow due to his divorce from Jennifer Aniston.) Finally, and this critique best takes the form of a question, how much does he actually know about Africa, as reflected in his work? How often does he actually say the name of a country or a leader or a city or an ethnic group or anything more geographically, politically, socially, or culturally specific than ‘Africa’? This has major implications for people who follow his work closely, especially those who understand his stories as reliable information on Africa. That definitely doesn’t do the continent any good given that a critical first step in promoting progress is having a thorough understanding of Africa.

Given his participation in a panel discussion with President Obama, and former Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton today on World AIDS Day, this thorough examination of humanitarian Bono is especially relevant. The Irish rockstar isn’t the first, however, and he definitely won’t be the last of an ever-expanding club of celebrities turned humanitarians; and I would argue that regardless of one’s personal feelings on the celebrity in question, their charitable works should always be taken with a grain of salt. After all, they’re celebrities first, and humanitarians second. Celebrity is a tool to further their humanitarian agenda, which is undoubtedly a product of their position in the world.

Ironically, I think Bono articulated my feelings, that celebrities can be used to draw attention to critical issues, but should not be understood as experts by any means on the matter, on the issue best:

“It is absurd if not obscene that celebrity is a door that such serious issues need to pass through before politicians take note. But there it is. Jubilee can’t get into some of the offices and I can. But the idea has a kind of force of its own. I’m just making it louder. And, you know, making noise is a job description really for a rock star.”