Why was a shared language for digital progress needed?
The Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement includes more than 190 National Societies. Some are still moving field data collection from paper to digital systems, while others use data to anticipate hazards and inform operations.
Those differences are expected as each National Society works in its own context. The problem was that there was no shared way to describe where an organisation was in its digital development, what it wanted to strengthen next or how progress could be discussed across the Movement.
For the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), a common language could make it easier to compare experiences and coordinate digital transformation without assuming that every National Society should follow the same path or pace.
How was the framework co-designed?
510, the data and digital unit of the Netherlands Red Cross, ORTEC and Analytics for a Better World developed the approach together with the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. The collaboration combined experience from humanitarian operations with methods previously used to assess data and digital maturity in other organisations.
Rather than transferring a commercial maturity model directly, the partners adapted the approach to humanitarian contexts. The resulting framework described three broad stages: building the basics, anticipating risk and becoming data-driven, with each stage considering people, processes and technology.
What changed after the first pilot?
510 and ORTEC first tested the framework with the Netherlands Red Cross, using it to develop short- and long-term data and digital roadmaps. The pilot showed how a large-scale ambition such as digital transformation could be translated into concrete priorities.
The partners then refined the framework into a standardised, self-service tool. National Societies in different parts of the world have since piloted it, and the framework has been incorporated into the IFRC Digital Transformation strategy. Participating National Societies could now use the same structure to discuss their current position and next priorities while adapting those choices to local needs.
What does the framework change for National Societies?
The framework centres three questions: where are we now, where do we want to go, and how do we get there? The answer can differ substantially between National Societies.
For one organisation, the next priority may be reliable digital data collection. For another, it may be using data to anticipate hazards. For a National Society with more established digital systems, it may involve building and maintaining its own services.
The framework therefore created a shared reference point without ranking National Societies against one fixed model of progress.
How could the impact look like next?
As more National Societies use the framework, the Movement can compare lessons across contexts while keeping decisions locally relevant. Future work could examine which parts of the framework are most useful at different stages and how repeated assessments change organisational priorities over time.
The main opportunity is not uniformity. It is a common way to discuss digital development while allowing National Societies to define the sequence and pace that fits their own operating environment.
