> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://urd.gitbook.io/compass/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://urd.gitbook.io/compass/learning-and-adapting/setting-up-a-learning-oriented-meal-system/institutional-level-building-an-organisation-that-learns.md). # Institutional level — Building an organisation that learns Learning does not happen automatically, even in organisations that are committed to quality and accountability. At institutional level, the question is not whether individual projects or programmes are learning — it is whether **the organisation as a whole is designed to learn**: whether the systems, culture and resources are in place to ensure that experience accumulated across projects, contexts and time actually shapes how the organisation works. This is the level where the conditions for learning at project and programme level are either created or constrained. An organisation that allocates time and resources for reflection, tolerates honest analysis of what did not work, and has systems for capturing and disseminating internally the knowledge that will produce better projects. One that does not will keep reinventing the wheel — and repeating the same mistakes. *** ### **Why institutional learning is hard** Before describing what good institutional learning looks like, it is worth being honest about why it is difficult. Most organisations working in humanitarian and development contexts face structural barriers that make learning genuinely challenging: **Pressure of reporting and compliance.** The majority of staff time is consumed by delivering activities and reporting on them. Learning requires stepping back, which is hard to justify when the deadlines are tight and the primary focus is compliance and donor's compliance. **A results culture that penalises failure.** When organisations and their donors reward success and treat failure as reputational risk, staff learn quickly that honest analysis is not safe. Lessons learned exercises become exercises in diplomatic understatement. **High staff turnover.** Institutional memory partly lives in people. When people leave, they take their knowledge with them. If that knowledge has not been captured in knowledge management systems and processes, it is lost. **Disconnection between policy and practice.** Most organisations have quality and accountability commitments on paper. Translating them into consistent behaviour across teams, contexts and hierarchical levels is a different challenge entirely. **The tool trap.** There is a persistent tendency to respond to learning challenges by deploying new tools — dashboards, knowledge management platforms, learning management systems. Tools can support learning, but they cannot substitute for the culture and processes that make learning possible. Deploying an information management system before the underlying habits and processes are in place is one of the most common and costly mistakes organisations make. *** ### **The five steps for building an institutional MEAL framework** The COMPASS proposes a structured process for building or strengthening an institutional MEAL framework. These five steps are not a linear recipe — they are a cycle that can be entered at any point and revisited as the organisation evolves.
Step 1 — Decision: why, for whom, with what ambition? The starting point is clarity of purpose. Why does the organisation want to strengthen its MEAL framework? What problem is it trying to solve? Who needs to be convinced, and who needs to be involved for the initiative to have legitimacy? This step should produce a clear statement — communicated internally — that defines the scope, the objectives, and the governance of the initiative. Without this, MEAL strengthening efforts tend to remain confined to the MEAL team and never achieve the organisational buy-in they need. Key questions: * What specific quality and accountability challenges are we trying to address? * What is the scope — all projects, specific contexts, specific sectors? * How can the MEAL framework be formalized and disseminated in a way that aligns with the institutional framework (is it a policy, an institutional directive, a guidance note, etc.)? * Who has the authority to validate the framework and hold the organisation accountable to it? * How does this initiative connect to existing internal standards and to the CHS?
Step 2 — Preparation: how will this be done? This step defines the process — who will facilitate, what the key milestones are, who will participate, and what the deliverables will be. It produces a terms of reference for the initiative that keeps it on track and ensures accountability. A critical point here is that a MEAL unit can lead the process, but it cannot own it alone. Operations, support functions, field teams, and partners — including local partners — need to be part of the design process. A MEAL framework that is designed by MEAL staff for MEAL staff will not be used by anyone else.
Step 3 — Diagnosis: where are we now? Before defining what good looks like, it is essential to understand current practice honestly. What are the existing strengths? Where are the gaps? What do different stakeholders — field teams, partners, communities, donors — actually need from a MEAL system? This step can be conducted through desk review, key informant interviews, field visits, or a structured survey. The MEAL Practices Analysis Framework provides a structured tool for this diagnosis, organised around the nine CHS commitments. *(See Toolbox — MEAL Practices Analysis Framework)* A common mistake at this stage is to diagnose from headquarters — producing an analysis that reflects the concerns of senior management rather than the realities of field implementation. The diagnosis is most useful when it includes perspectives from the people who will actually use the system.
Step 4 — Identification: what are our priority commitments? Based on the diagnosis, this step involves agreeing on a set of priority MEAL commitments — the minimum practices that every project in the organisation will apply, and the expected good practices that projects will work towards over time. The key principle here is **start small and build**. It is better to implement three commitments well than to declare ten and implement none. Priority commitments should be: * Practical and operational — staff should be able to translate them into concrete actions * Adapted to the organisation's context and capacity — not copied from a template * Anchored in the CHS — using its nine commitments as the reference framework * Validated collectively — through a participatory workshop that builds ownership The following sources should inform the identification of priority commitments: * Stakeholder expectations — what communities, donors, partners and staff need from a MEAL system * Existing organisational commitments — how the CHS connects to internal policies already in place * Sectoral standards — Sphere, IMAS, and others applicable to the organisation's areas of work * Legal and donor requirements — data protection obligations, reporting requirements * Evidence from past learning — what previous experience in the same contexts or sectors suggests
Step 5 — Leading change: implementing progressively and sustainably The final step is implementation — but implementation understood as a change management process, not a rollout. New practices take time to embed. They require training, support, follow-up, and visible commitment from leadership. They also require honest monitoring of whether they are actually being used — not just whether the tools exist. This step is organised around the continuous improvement cycle: Plan → Do → Check → Act. It is not a one-time exercise but an ongoing process of consolidation and adjustment.
Four roles are particularly important during this step: * **Targets** — the project teams and partners whose practices need to change * **Facilitators** — the MEAL team and operational coordinators who support the change * **Decision-makers** — the senior leadership who validate and legitimise the framework * **Sponsors** — support functions, donors, and others who have an interest in the change and can support it indirectly
*** ### **What the CHS contributes at institutional level** The CHS is not just a project-level tool. At institutional level, it provides: **A common reference framework** that allows the organisation to align quality and accountability practices across departments, contexts and partners, without imposing uniform tools. Different teams in different contexts can use different approaches, as long as they are working towards the same commitments. **A shared language** that facilitates dialogue between field teams, support functions, programme management and senior leadership. It helps reducing the misunderstandings that arise when different parts of an organisation interpret accountability differently. **A basis for assessing organisational maturity.** The MEAL Practices Analysis Framework, organised around the nine CHS commitments, allows an organisation to assess where it stands and identify priorities for improvement — not as a compliance exercise, but as a foundation for honest strategic conversation. *(See Toolbox — MEAL Practices Analysis Framework - coming soon)* **A foundation for more agile relationships with donors.** Organisations that can demonstrate a robust institutional MEAL framework aligned with the CHS are better positioned to negotiate flexible, trust-based funding relationships, thus reducing the transaction costs of project-by-project accountability and creating space for genuine learning. *** #### **The three cycles at institutional level** The three-cycle model applies at institutional level too, though at a much slower rhythm. **The regular cycle** — at institutional level, this means maintaining ongoing visibility over the quality and accountability performance of the portfolio: are the MEAL commitments being applied? Are there systemic issues emerging across projects that require institutional attention? This is typically the responsibility of a MEAL or quality team at headquarters level, working in close collaboration with programme management. **The intermediate cycle** — periodic organisational reviews that assess whether the institutional MEAL framework is fit for purpose: are the priority commitments still the right ones? Have the context and the organisation's needs evolved in ways that require an update? How complex is it for field and program teams to meet the requirements? How can they be adapted ? These reviews should involve field teams and partners, not just headquarters staff. **The slow cycle** — periodic strategic reflection on what the organisation has learned across its portfolio, how this learning has shaped its strategy and practices, and what it wants to contribute to sector-level knowledge. This is the level at which the organisation's contribution to collective learning — through publications, peer exchanges, and coordination structures — is defined and resourced. *** #### **A MEAL system inspired by the CHS should be…** Whatever the level of ambition, an institutional MEAL system grounded in the CHS should share six characteristics: {% stepper %} {% step %} ### **Practical** It supports field teams rather than adding bureaucratic burden. Its value should be visible to the people who use it, not just to those who designed it. {% endstep %} {% step %} ### Tailored It is adapted to the organisation's specific context, capacity and culture. There is no universal template. The CHS provides the reference framework; the organisation decides how to apply it. {% endstep %} {% step %} ### Collective It is owned by the whole organisation, not just the MEAL team. Everyone contributes to quality and accountability; the system should reflect that. {% endstep %} {% step %} ### Complementary It connects to and reinforces other quality initiatives rather than competing with them. It aligns with donor requirements, sectoral standards, and coordination mechanisms. {% endstep %} {% step %} ### Inclusive It reflects the perspectives of the communities the organisation serves, not just the needs of management and donors. Community voice should shape the system, not just be captured by it. {% endstep %} {% step %} ### Continuous It is never finished. Quality and accountability is an ongoing process of reflection, adjustment and improvement — not a standard to be achieved once and certified. {% endstep %} {% endstepper %} *** #### **Key points** * Institutional learning requires deliberate investment in culture, systems and processes, not just tools * The five-step process offers a structured but flexible pathway for building or strengthening an institutional MEAL framework * The CHS provides the common reference that gives meaning and coherence to the system across the organisation * Start small: three commitments implemented well are worth more than ten declared and ignored * The connection between institutional learning and project and programme practice runs in both directions : field experience should shape institutional decisions, and institutional systems should enable field learning