The idea of developing a humanitarian version of the tech platforms we have seen disrupt one industry after another is appealing. But is it realistic and possible to create the humanitarian Airbnb and can we deliver principled outcomes through an app? Is it possible to cut out the humanitarian middle man.
These are some of the questions Natasha Freidus and Amanda Levinson explore together with Lars Peter Nissen in this episode.
Check needslist.co to learn more and enjoy the conversation.
Transcript
The idea of developing a humanitarian version of the tech platforms we have seen disrupt one industry after another is appealing. But is it realistic? And is it possible to create the humanitarian Airbnb? And can we deliver principled outcomes through an app? Is it possible to cut out the humanitarian middleman? These were some of the questions looming in my head when I entered this conversation with the two entrepreneurial humanitarians, Natasha Fridus and Amanda Levinson, who are the co-founders of the startup Needslist. As you'll hear, they have really thoughtful and smart answers to these questions and it was a great conversation. Clearly, solutions such as Needslist cannot fully replace the mainstream humanitarian action as we know it today, but it's equally clear that it has an important and complementary role to play. It was therefore frustrating, but maybe not surprising, to hear Amanda and Natasha's experience in engaging with what they call 'an ageing industry that lacks an appetite for innovation'. But I think you should go check out Needslist and make up your own mind. And I hope you enjoy the conversation.
Natasha Fridus and Amanda Levinson and welcome to Trumanitarian.
Both:Thank you for having us.
Lars Peter Nissen:As I wrote to you, when you approached me on LinkedIn, you had me at hello, how can you say no to a story about two female tech entrepreneurs who develop a new app that helps humans own action become more... yeah, become more what, actually?
Amanda Levinson:Yeah, so we are a company, woman owned company, as you mentioned, who... that is creating solutions to make humanitarian action faster, and more sustainable and equitable. And we really believe in creating solutions that are collaborative, that are tech-enabled, and that are grounded in the dignity of local populations. So what we currently have is a software that matches the needs and offers in... for urgent local needs in real time. It's a an enterprise level software. And so what it does is it allows organizations that are coordinating a response in a country or a region or a city, you know, just in an area, to aggregate what the needs are from local organizations that are doing a response. These could be supply needs, they could be funding needs, they could be information needs, volunteer needs, etc. And then it matches those needs that are put into the software with offers that might be available from other organizations or local businesses. And it matches those needs and offers in real time to create more efficiency in the response.
Lars Peter Nissen:So you create a piece of software that helps an NGO become Airbnb for the humanitarian sector.
Amanda Levinson:We haven't thought of it that way. But let's go ahead, Tasha.
Natasha Fridus:I think there's often a misconception that platforms really are the Airbnb for the humanitarian sector. And I would challenge that because our software is actually not directed towards individuals like Airbnb, that's where the analogy breaks down. It's a B2B matching software. So anybody... any user on the platform is associated with either an NGO, a CSO, a company, and it's really around designing that level of matching as opposed to individuals posting their needs. So on Needslist, those individuals do not post their needs and individuals cannot offer help. It's entirely b2b.
Lars Peter Nissen:You're the Alibaba for the humanitarian sector.
Amanda Levinson:But if that's still individuals buying items and goods online...
Lars Peter Nissen:All right, all right. You're unique, your Needslist, you're for the humanitarian sector, where did the idea come from?
Natasha Fridus:Well, ironically, the idea came from being the Airbnb for the humanitarian sector [laughing], Lars. No you're right in that... when we got started, I was actually living in France at really the height of when Syrians were arriving in Europe in 2O15-2O16. And I was on the ground, supporting local refugees with a local organization. And I was just stunned by kind of the mass chaos and all the needs that were emerging every day and changing every day and I just found that we needed better tools to communicate in real time what was needed because at that point, everybody wanted to help and there was no good way of identifying what was needed where so people would end up bringing things we don't need, or things that were inappropriate or duplicating efforts. And so because I come from a tech background, I was just looking online, I figured there had to be some kind of registry, needs registry, like plugin, that we could put on a WordPress site. And I couldn't find anything. And so I ended up using a wedding registry as a way to communicate needs in real time to our volunteers. And that was really like the, the MVP, or minimum viable product, first proof of concept for Needslist. But what happened as as we started building out the company and the product is, we really saw that, while yes, there is... there does need to be a better way to reach individual volunteers and donors there... the more fundamental problem, as we saw it, was that organizations had no way of communicating with one another. And so we actually pivoted our company, and we rebuilt the software, to be a b2b matching platform, instead of a needs... a way of communicating needs directly to donors. So we actually have two pieces of software. But our energy and focus right now is on what we call respond local, which is the software Amanda described.
Lars Peter Nissen:So the way you describe it now sounds more to me like you are... you've developed a tech platform that essentially had the functionality that OCHA sort of has for the mainstream.
Natasha Fridus:Yeah, that's exactly right. Yeah. And maybe a couple of use cases might... it helps illustrate it. So what happened at the very beginning, is we were working on Lesbos with a number of local NGOs there. And one of them posted a need for a defibrillator and another NGO across the island saw that they need... saw the first NGO needed a defibrillator, they had one sitting in their warehouse and extra one that was going unused, and they brought it over, you know, seven kilometers, right? So instead of the traditional model of saying we need this, donor buys one, perhaps in the States or the UK, and sends it across the ocean, and this was delivered within 24 hours at no cost. And so it just got us really thinking, okay, what are all these other items that might be sitting in warehouses, or available, and just nobody knows what's needed? You know? So what what our software really does is information matching more than anything. It just is the very much a starting point for the process.
Lars Peter Nissen:You mentioned this example from Lesbos where it is a... really is a local affair, seven kilometers, is that is that primarily the use case to sort of ensure that the resources that is in... basically in the affected area are utilized in a better way?
Amanda Levinson:Yeah, so what we're really trying to do is create more efficiencies in how organizations communicate their needs, and also get those needs met within as much of a local area is possible. So we're trying to re-... we're basically trying to create a software that can reduce some of the waste that we see and inefficiencies that we see when organizations have needs and then a donor ships something overseas--which could be procured locally, which could be manufactured locally, which could be brought locally from another organization to that organization. And, you know, I think so often we think about humanitarian aid as being, you know, a country or a city or a refugee camp, needs something, and then it gets shipped in from overseas, when a lot of times the resources, they're available locally, it's just that there's that information asymmetry. This is what we hear over and over again, is, We'd love to help locally, but nobody knows what's needed where. And so that's what we're really trying to help solve for with our software is have a place where organizations can share those needs out, so that everybody understands what's needed where and, also, who can help, and who can help the most locally as possible and really tried to build the capacity of not only of local organizations, but of local organizations to help each other have local businesses to be able to support those groups.
Natasha Fridus:And we actually had a fantastic example this morning come in with photos documenting the arrival of 1OOO face shields to one of our partners in Uganda. So we're working with Field Ready, which is a US nonprofit that supports local manufacturing. And so they're using Needslist to identify needs of local organizations serving refugees in Uganda. Lira NGO posted a need for face shields, and Field Ready identified a local manufacturer that can produce them in Uganda, and then these were were delivered, you know. So the entire like cycle of need, production, need being met, all happened within the country, which is fantastic.
Amanda Levinson:And I, you know, just want to add that we see this over and over again. We've seen this in humanitarian contexts, but also in disaster relief context as well. So I moved to North Carolina right before Hurricane Florence, it was a major hurricane that hit the state. And there was really... you know, there were dozens of organizations that were trying to coordinate a response, a local response to help people. And, you know, we were on these conference calls for these organizations we're sharing out over two hours, Here's, you know, here's what we need, here's what we need. I was saying, you know, we have a software that can that can help with this. And so, you know, as soon as that information got into a single place, it was like a game changer for organizations. And it wasn't individuals that were primarily using this, it was other organizations helping other organizations. Save the Children would come in and say, Where are diapers needed, and there was a local organization in these... in a small rural town that had the need for diapers, and they were able to, you know, get the items to where they needed to be. So it's just... it's really amazing what can happen when you just have the information that's out there?
Lars Peter Nissen:Where would you say your most successful operation has been? Where have you really made a difference?
Natasha Fridus:I think I'd go back to the Uganda example, if you'd agree with that, Amanda, that work has been really exciting. It's been funded through the Humanitarian Grand Challenge, which is an innovation award that runs out of Grand Challenges Canada, and is supported by USAID DFID and the Dutch Ministry of Affairs. And what... we've been partnering there with a number of organizations, and part of what's been exciting about that is that the majority of them are refugee-led organizations. So you've got that local leadership of affected populations from from the get go. They've been fantastic to communicate with. We've been testing different technologies with them over the past year and a half. We started off working with a chat... testing a chatbot, with the idea that their field workers can text in their needs in real time to a centralized database. And they loved it, but what happened is, when we went there to do some fieldwork and testing, we realized that while it was certainly better than what they were using as a default, there was still a problem with with lack of connectivity in the field. So oftentimes, they would be writing it down in their notebooks, then getting back to the office and then texting it in. And we said, Okay, so this isn't the right solution for this context. Let's figure out something that works offline. So now we're testing a mobile app that ties into our Respond Local software that allows them to text in their needs offline. And when they get back to the office, it syncs with the database. And so very... I'd say, for the past, you know, year and a half, we've had consistent use by numerous field workers of the technologies. We're learning with them. they're getting needs met locally, and it's... you know, we've managed to bring in different partners and donors on that, too. So...
Lars Peter Nissen:So how many users would you say? How many users do you have in Uganda?
Natasha Fridus:Can you define uses load?
Lars Peter Nissen:Yeah, how many people enter needs into the system?
Natasha Fridus:it's still a small pilot. So there's about 30 that are entering needs in the system right now. And I want to say something like $25-50,000 needs met... that have been met, that's our main metric of needs met, the dollar value. And, you know, but representing for smaller organizations, that's quite a bit. Right. So yeah.
Amanda Levinson:And the other thing that I want to add to that, is that the other thing that's been really useful about this pilot in Uganda is that... so these aid workers they've had, they've actually added hundreds of needs to the platform. And because it's been kind of open in the sense of, they can add supply needs, they can add tasks, they can add, you know, whatever, we're seeing it's... we're seeing that they're adding things like roads. They want roads in their towns. Or they want chemistry teachers. So it's just been... or, you know, sewing machines for women... local women's empowerment project. It's just as useful to understand what the universe of needs actually is and also, what are the needs that are going unmet? And also, what are the things that are not there that we would assume would be there as well. So there's so many different ways to look at this... the databases of needs that are being collected from the field that I don't think is has really been, is really being, done.
Lars Peter Nissen:So basically what we're doing here is we're cutting out the middleman. Right? So let me put on my middleman cap, which is what... No, but it's not what we're doing, Natasha?
Natasha Fridus:It's actually not what we're doing. So we're not trying to create an open marketplace or platform. It is like... As Amanda said earlier, it's a licensed software where actually, the middleman can step back if he or she wants to, or be involved. So that means that the middleman... I actually want to use a better... we use the term intermediary, so I'm going to use that. So whoever the coordinating body or intermediary is, can decide who has access to the software. It can be... if they're a membership based organization, it can be only their members. It could be anybody with a registered charity, nonprofit or business number. They can add additional vetting criteria to it, so they control who has access. And then what it does is it eliminates... it reduces the need for the intermediary to be hand... manually matchmaking and sitting on the phone and sitting, going back and forth with email connecting the two. It allows for that peer to peer connection. And... But the intermediary can still be very, very involved, actually. So it's really... it's very configurable, the software is configurable. You can say, admins get notified every single time there's a match and become part of the process, or it can be entirely hands off and it all happens through the software.
Lars Peter Nissen:So you could do, you could say, a very thin platform where basically whoever throws in a need, and somebody wants to respond to that, that's fine. You could validate the need, I guess, say, Oh, we don't think teachers belong on this platform, send them to the teacher platform, and we focus on non-food items here.
Natasha Fridus:Yeah, and you can actually control, you could control, the catalog of needs. So you can say, only these types of needs. You upload your own catalog. And so, if you want it to be focused on... for example, the work we're doing with Field Ready in Uganda is entirely focused on PPE. And so users can't add other types of needs. So if there are items, for example, that can't be imported into the country, you can exclude those from the catalog.
Lars Peter Nissen:And so, I go on this platform and say, oh, yeah, 1OOO face shields would be fantastic, but actually, the real need is only 300. How do you check that?
Amanda Levinson:Well, so that's really up to the licensing organization, the organization that's licensing the software, and that's coordinating that matching of needs and offers between entities to vet and verify. And they can set parameters, right, so they can say like, you can only post up to X 100 of needs for face shields, on this specific need. And anytime there's an offer that has been matched with a need, there's a notification that goes to all parties. So it goes to the organization that is requesting the face shields, it goes to the organization that's offering the face shields, and it also goes to the organization that's licensing the software, so that they understand what... so that they get a global view of what's happening, what the what the transactions are. And then there's also a robust reporting system on the back end where where they can see all the differen activity that's going through the platform.
Natasha Fridus:And I would just jump in to say we get this question a lot and I think part of that question is really tied to distrust people have of local organizations and issues of localization. Because you can ask the same thing of the current system, the more traditional system, where an INGO goes out and assesses what's needed. And so I think what we're seeing when we we hear this repeated, like, how do you know those needs are valid is, how do we know that we can trust these local organizations? And so I think it's fair to flip that back and say, How do we know the status quo is working? How do we know we can trust INGOs to assess needs accurately?
Lars Peter Nissen:No, I think we know that it's not working adequately. Right? I think that's what we know. That's basically what what I have been working on for the past 10 years is around how do we get better needs assessment. That's what ACAPS does. And it is an incredibly complex issue. And so I think, yeah, you can make the Oh, we can't trust the local organizations to be honest about the needs. But you could also make the argument that sometimes things are so confusing, that actually you don't really know when maybe you flag the wrong needs. So I... it's not just about lack of trust, it's also how do you actually validate needs in high levels of uncertainty and ambiguity?
Natasha Fridus:I think that's... yeah, absolutely. You're right.
Amanda Levinson:Yeah, that's totally valid.
Natasha Fridus:And we don't pretend that this is going to be a panacea. You know, what we're arguing for is there has to be a better way and we have the technology resources available to develop better ways together. And the challenge right now is all needs assessment tools end up being siloed and any aggregation of them ends up being in a PDF form or in nothing that shows real time data. And that is really, frankly... it's catastrophic and unconscionable when we have the technology available to develop this. So we don't think tech is going to necessarily solve the problem like that there's no single piece of software, but we do have the ability to to make it better and to work with affected communities to figure out how to improve the status quo.
Lars Peter Nissen:Yeah, and I think what's so interesting about the story you tell is the bit around enhancing the agency of crisis affected population, refugee-led organizations being able to actually shape the humanitarian narrative, if you want, and say, Yeah, this is our needs. This is what we actually want. And I think the localization piece of it is really interesting as well, that it's... it lowers the threshold for for tapping into local resources, rather than having to bloody import everything from from across the world. I think those those are really fantastic things. I do think that there is an issue around how do you actually validate, in a way, so that it doesn't just become a remote middleman or intermediary with all the biases that are associated with that, that just clicks yes or no on the platform without ever having been to the field, or just having seen the photo? I think there's some issues around that. And I think the other thing that's on my mind is... I mean, I think some of the the most spectacular weirdness you experience in the sector is unsolicited goods. Right, the things that people actually want to give away in a crisis ranges from... I think the maddest one I've heard was a donation of ice skates to a flooding in Bangladesh. How are you able to combine that, right? But and... or a slurry truck to Albania? I mean, we... it's it's quite a... So, can you just propose whatever you want to be donated on this? And people can say, Yeah, I'd like one of those.
Amanda Levinson:Well, yeah, so organizations can make offers of what it is that they would like to donate, and those offers could be, I guess, nearly anything. But, you know, again, the vision here is really to try to prevent the unsolicited offers, the unneeded things, to ever make their way into the field in the first place. And, you know, Tasha and I, we saw this firsthand when we were in Greece, like these warehouses that were being run by grassroots organizations and boxes filled with lingerie for women and refugee camps, and, you know, and tennis racquets, and just, you know, all kinds of... high heels and all kinds of things. And, you know, there's so much there's so much goodwill and... that individuals have, but also that companies have as well. Like, when crisis hits, everybody wants to help, they don't know how, they don't know what's needed. But if you tell them, Don't send this, send this. Or, Here's exactly what's needed. This is the only thing that we're taking right now. Then... there will always be of course, actors, that just... they send a tractor trailer full of water to a location where, you know, it's been really explicit, like, there's no water needed, but we're trying to reduce that.
Natasha Fridus:And so what happens instead of these unwanted donations flooding the ports and that and the runways... what happens if they're in a database that is searchable, and allows organization (maybe not in that first two weeks when you know, the first madness of crisis, right?)... but what happens if three months later, they're like, actually, we do need that now. Would you be able to send it? And so that's really the vision as well is, let people access what they need when they need it.
Lars Peter Nissen:So we spoke about Uganda. How many locations is it working in now? How many operations are you serving?
Amanda Levinson:The current software that we have is being used in Iraq, Bangladesh, Kenya, and Uganda. And then we also have Venezuela and Peru in South America. But the B2C platform that we started off with was used in over 25 countries, with hundreds of organizations around the world and in all different contexts, like refugee camps, disaster... multiple disaster.
Lars Peter Nissen:And when you say B2C, you mean business to customer. So, essentially the wedding list.
Amanda Levinson:That's right
Lars Peter Nissen:Wedding registry, yeah.
Amanda Levinson:Yeah, the wedding registry one. Yep.
Lars Peter Nissen:So now you move to this B2B model, and you have these six, seven countries where you're doing this. What would you say is your main learning in terms of... What's a diff-... Where'd you hit a wall? What surprises you in being very easy? What's the big success? And what's... What are the downsides?
Amanda Levinson:Well, I can start, I guess. I was sure, Tasha, you will have a lot to add here. But you know, I think one of the... so from my perspective, there have been two really big main challenges that that we face. And the first is that this is an aging sector and it's also a really recalcitrant sector, where it's ver-... really hard to innovate. And, you know, initially, we thought of the software as a tool for supporting local organizations, and also as a very tangible way for larger organizations to reach their goals of funding local organizations that they had committed to and they could really understand what the needs were were. And we were, you know... and we continue to sit in on these meetings and conferences, now Zoom calls, where heads of NGOs or staff of NGOs keep saying... you know, they're talking about the shortcomings of the sector and they keep pointing to the challenges of... that, that was one of the biggest challenges in not being able to redirect more resources to local organizations is not understanding what the needs are. We hear this over and over again. And we're sitting there like, We have a software, we have a tool that does this. But there's... you know, it's... and a lot of your guests have pointed this in previous shows, that it's really hard to shift these huge systems. They're these massive tankers that are just... they're really slow to move. So there's that. And I think, related to that, at some point, we then realize that this isn't... you know, this is actually about the political will to make changes. It's not that there aren't the resources to make changes, it's that there's a lot that goes into protecting the status quo and there's not a huge appetite for innovation, or even for trying things and seeing whether or not they work. So that's the first thing.
Lars Peter Nissen:Can we... can we unpack that a little bit? I love the fact that you call us an aging sector, that we basically geriatric organizations. I think that's hilarious.
Natasha Fridus:We're well into our 40s. Just by full disclosure, it's not like... [laughing].
Lars Peter Nissen:Let's try to unpack this a bit. So basically, you approach the mainstream humanitarian organizations and you see a very limited appetite for the sort of solution you have. I hear you initially describing that as, Okay, maybe they just don't have the appetite. But actually, you then see that this is not an issue of lack of resources, it's simply lack of political will and is protecting the status quo. So two questions, Why do you think it's like that? And have you made any sort of a dent in that? Have you made any progress?
Natasha Fridus:Why do you think it's like that, Lars?
Lars Peter Nissen:I think it's because of perverse incentives.
Natasha Fridus:Yes, I think that's right. I mean, so it's really... the way innovation is structured is there's no incentive for collaboration or coordination, right? So unless you're looking at the cluster systems, or UN agencies, each INGO has their own innovation arm, the funding goes into their own arm, and they're incentivized to come up with their own solutions. And those solutions are not necessarily going to be about ways to move resources to other organizations. So that's, you know... there's a problem right there
Amanda Levinson:Or to collaborate across organizations or to coordinate.
Lars Peter Nissen:So if we didn't make it, and if it's not good for us, we don't do.
Natasha Fridus:So if you look at the systems which have been set up that are, in theory, set up to support coordination, like public sector, or multilateral organizations, I think the challenge there is really about entrenched bureaucracy and inability to innovate, frankly. And so innovation ends up being focused on products, as opposed to systems-level change and process-level change.
Lars Peter Nissen:And so have you had any positive experiences with the mainstream organizations, and what were they?
Natasha Fridus:Well, absolutely. You know, the... we are being funded right now through this "Juntos Es Mejor" Challenge, which is set up to support the Venezuelan displacement crisis. And so that's, you know, that's fantastic. It's USAID and IDB funding and will allow us to deploy Needslist, white labeled as Red Recuperación in Latin America, so that's fantastic. That's the good side of it. The challenge there is, like most innovation funding streams, they're set up for like a year, right? So you've got, it's actually less than one year to develop, deploy, prove out a model and secure additional funding to scale it up. You know that's really not... It sets innovators up for failure from the beginning. So there's definitely challenges around that. I'm gonna try to think of some more positive models. We know... I think we were... one of the last trips I did right before the lockdown last year was to the Humanitarian Partnerships Week in Geneva and, you know, I do think it's a really a shame that there... I was invited to speak, I think there was a lot of interest around the model. and then of course, everybody, like, turned inwards when the lockdown happened. But I do think there is a growing recognition of the need for the tools that we're doing, especially because of COVID and because people are understanding the need for better coordination and for understanding the needs in a more transparent way of local populations.
Lars Peter Nissen:So I think we have a good description of your core services, of your software, what it does. You spoke a bit about system change. So how are you a change agent? How are you able to, not just deliver services in Uganda to that group of organizations, but actually change at a larger scale? Do you want to take that Amanda?
Amanda Levinson:It's not that we think that we're going to completely change the humanitarian system through our software, right? What we're trying to do is innovate a bit, especially in these core areas of collaboration, coordination, speed, efficiency, transparency, equity: like these are big things that we're trying to move the ball forward with a little bit with our software. And, you know, the one thing that... the one word that I don't want to use when we talk about the work that we're doing is disruption. A lot of people said, "Oh, you know, this is a disruptive software. You're like, you're trying to dis-, you're disrupting the humanitarian system." And, you know, I don't want to use the word disrupt to talk about what we're doing, because disruption is part of the problem. And disrupt means to destroy, it means to break apart, it means to displace existing structures. And I really think that language matters. And that when we talk about disrupting, or crushing it, or we're killing it in relation to our work in a sector, which is which is literally trying to do the opposite--it's trying to stabilize countries, is trying to repair communities, is trying to save lives--that that's a problem. And so it's... and it's using the language of trauma to talk about the work of a sector where people's lives and well beings are at stake. So I think that part of... part of what we want to do is create a new vocabulary, it's around repair, it's around co-creation, it's around innovation. And these past few years, and especially this past year, have been disruptive enough, and so I think that if we can... if our software and our company can help create a vision of a humanitarian community that is about repair, that is about stabilizing, that's about coordinating and equity, all these things that we've been talking about, then I think that that that'll be a huge contribution. And I don't know if you want to add to that, Tasha.
Natasha Fridus:I think the only thing that I would add is, part of why we've been able to secure some of the partnerships and had the traction we have is because we, in and of ourselves, are a new model. So we're a tech startup that's intentionally formed as a mission based technology company. It's a public benefit corporation, which is similar to a B Corp, and they're very few examples of that model working in the sector. So traditionally, you've got large NGOs and kind of charities, and then you've got maybe private sector companies that want to do some corporate social responsibility or helping out. We really see ourselves as living in the middle and, for lack of a better way of saying this is, kind of breaking down that binary way of seeing that there's people who are here to help and there are people here that are here to profit. And so I think there's a... there's room for a new model. And that's part of what we're really... I think one of our impact has been around changing the dialogue and letting people imagine a new model of a company that can do both.
Lars Peter Nissen:Yeah, I think that was a very thoughtful answer to a somewhat simplistic question, actually. I thought... I really liked what you said. I think at times, it can be frustrating to see the lack of change in the sector and sometimes you can look at some of the industries that have been disrupted, and today are delivering significantly better services, and you can you can then, why should we do that? But I actually really take the point, that it is fundamentally a very destructive process, and that that's not who we are. So we are talking about some kind of a plus sum game here. You're not here to replace OCHA, you're not here to replace the mainstream humanitarian system. But then what is the collaboration? What is the system link ideally, for you? Where do we meet?
Natasha Fridus:Ideally, OCHA would license our software and make it available to local countries so that they could use it in times of crisis and beyond. You know, and whether it's just OCHA, or other UN agencies, I absolutely do not see this as an either or. We do not want a tech company running the humanitarian system. We're really clear on that. Like, multilaterals have been set up very intentionally and while there are problems with them, we... technology alone is not going to solve these problems, right? We need people on board and we need people who are managing the software, too.
Lars Peter Nissen:So let me put on a OCHA hat for a little while, and IM hat and then say, You know what, guys, we have a whole division that is focused on information management, on coordination, and we able to do this at scale. Okay, so maybe it can look a bit clunky with all the clusters in the big operation in the first weeks, but actually, we have a lot of people working on this, and we do have some pretty advanced tools within the different clusters. It's just... it's with trusted suppliers, because that's what you need when you move quickly. And we think it's nice that you guys play around with with the somewhat smaller organizations and do some of that stuff that... it seems it seems nice. But I don't think as far us. What would you say to that?
Natasha Fridus:We've looked at some of the software, for example, what's being used right now in Latin America to support... where organizations can register and see what's happening around the Venezuelan crisis. And I gotta say, it's got nothing on our user experience and our design. We've been designing with our users from the beginning. It doesn't show anything in real time. So I would say it's... sometimes you need to have an outsider come in and try new things and look at it in a different way. And it's not to say that the systems and software that OCHA is building aren't needed. Of course they are. But that doesn't mean that you can't bring in other solutions as well. And, you know, imagine what we could do if we had the resources behind us. You have to think about like other industries that have been in quote, unquote, disrupted, they had billions of dollars in investment to make that happen. It didn't just happen. It didn't just happen on a couple million dollars of investment.
Lars Peter Nissen:So let's go back to those six, seven contexts you work: Iraq, Bangladesh, Uganda, Kenya, Venezuela, Peru, was that right? So give me the top three problems that you're struggling with.The hardest knots to crack. Not the tech stuff (we don't really understand that on this show) but sort of the the use of. What are the effects that are not happening? What are the things that keeps you up at night?
Amanda Levinson:Well, I would say that one of the one of the challenges is just simply from an information standpoint, getting the word out enough so that enough organizations and enough businesses are consistently using the software. That's something that just takes some time. And that's another thing that you can't just build the software and then everybody's going to rush to it. We know from having done this for years now that you need boots on the ground, you need people that are trusted in the community, to really show people what the value is of using a new tool, that they're not just going to use it and then nothing's going to happen that there's actually... that there's a value here and it's worth their time, it's worth the resources. But that's that's been a challenge in every context. So that's one.
Lars Peter Nissen:So marketing and building a trusted brand.
Amanda Levinson:Absolutely, yeah.
Natasha Fridus:And then balancing so supply and demand, right? Because it is a marketplace software so if you only have needs and no offers, or vice versa, it's not going to work effectively.
Lars Peter Nissen:And what... Which one has been the problem?
Amanda Levinson:Well for... I can say that when we did a pilot of our software, we had basically just built it, were just, you know, kind of wrapping it up when COVID hit. And so we decided that we wanted to pilot it for COVID. And so initially, there were actually tons of offers on the pilot that we have launched, lots of offers for PPE, and organizations that just weren't claiming those offers. So that was lopsided in that way. And then we've also seen that, you know, like, in refugee contexts, for example, that there'll be lots of needs that are in the database, but you don't have the offers, or organizations or companies that are claiming the off-... or claim claiming the needs, sorry. So it is really hard to get that balance. And we're gonna see if it can work in any context, where at least there's more of a balance, but that's part of what we're testing.
Lars Peter Nissen:Great so the market bit, supply demand bit, and then what what's the third one.
Natasha Fridus:I'd say the third one is really around the logistics piece of it. So it's great if there's matches, you know, that's the first step, but it's obviously not the last step. So everything that happens between that match of understanding, connecting these two parties that need an offer to last mile delivery, that is not integrated into the platform. That's happening off platform if we work with different logistics partners around that. But of course, that's obviously an issue, especially when you're talking about smaller shipments to local organizations that are... you know, might not have the experience with procurement or last mile delivery as well. So that's always going to be an issue and it's actually one we very intentionally not... are not trying to solve ourselves. That's not our expertise. Because we know that while aid can't be delivered without that piece, or argument is you can't have any kind of more efficient system without that information piece. So we see this as the first step.
Lars Peter Nissen:The thing I have been really trying to think about with these type of solutions, and that I've never really found a good answer to is the issue of how do you ensure that you get a principled outcome, right, in this supply demand system? I mean, don't you run the risk of the most vulnerable not being heard or not being able to enter their needs into the platform? Who actually looks at that? Who actually looks at whether... are we getting it right? Or do we... Is there some kind of market failure here which means that actually we are leaving a few people behind?
Amanda Levinson:So that's a really great question. It's an important question. It's a question that we've grappled with since we started Needslist. Because our mission and vision is, has always been, to surface the voices of the organizations that are working with some of the most vulnerable people. And, I think by design, our software that we've built is intended to get the voices of the organizations that are working with those most vulnerable people from the get go. So in all of these contexts that we're... where the software is being used, it's being used by organizations that are refugee-led organizations, or that are led by members of the community that are that are working with vulnerable populations in country. A lot of that is going to depend on who's licensing the software to begin with, right? So if it's if the software is being licensed by an organization that's coordinating a response with with midsize organizations or larger organizations or smaller organizations. But the other thing I would say is that, at least, you know, built into these projects that... where the software is being used, we have an evalu-... a company that's doing an evaluation of the outcomes that looks at populations served in terms of gender, in terms of background income, like all those different demographics, to really understand who... not only who was getting their needs met, but who was posting the needs, understanding what the challenges were, why the needs didn't get met, things like that.
Natasha Fridus:And so, we may not be able to solve that. But our back end reporting and data will show if we aren't solving it, which is the first step to solving it, right?
Lars Peter Nissen:Yeah. You spoke about your licensing, what's the business model, actually? So you got some money to develop the solution from from different donors. You got some money to develop the solution from different donors. Do your users pay for the software? How expensive is it?
Natasha Fridus:Whoever is licensing the software is paying for it. And, you know, there are different tiers depending on the number of users and, you know, the length of the license. Buut it's free for the users entirely and I think that's really important. I think, because Amanda and I both have a lot of experience in technology and the impact sector, we know that organizations aren't going to use it if they need to pay for it. Like change, adaptation of new software is really slow. And frankly, having those costs covered by whoever's licensing it or foundations is going to be absolutely critical. But it is (I referred to this earlier)... it is a white labeled software, which means that the branding and look and feel of the software will be who... from... completely customized, so it doesn't look like Needslist software. Like the Red Recuperación in Latin America looks... it's got its own look and feel and color scheme and, you know, the partners who are licensing it are, you know, front and center. Same thing with the Field Ready one we're doing as well.
Lars Peter Nissen:So it sounds to me like you're beginning to find... You have proof of concept, right? You've been able to demonstrate this working in a number of places. Not at a massive scale, but of course, you know, when we talk about innovation and startups, you know, disruption is one thing we talked about, and scaling, of course, is what we also talk about. So where are you in five years?
Amanda Levinson:Yeah, I mean, I think our vision is... you know, when I think about the outcome, it's that we have... fundamentally, we have a humanitarian sector that's really serving the needs of the people, and that's meeting the needs of the people. And that means that these local organizations that have effectively been, you know, cut out from funding and from resources, that they're that they're really thriving, and that they're able to serve the needs of their communities more effectively. So that's what I think about like the outcome. In order for that to happen... What needs to happen in order for that to happen? Well, obviously, the software needs to be adopted at a much larger scale. And, you know, I think that it's in some ways, it's like, it's a mindset shift, too, that we're talking about. It's... You know, because when you when you get the adoption of something like a software, it means that, you know, that the organizations that are using it have bought into the idea that, Okay, this is something that's really valuable. It's something that we actually really need to do in order to change the outcomes of other communities. We can't do business as usual. You know, we're like the... Every disaster, every humanitarian emergency, it's like Groundhog Day. Like, we see the same problems over and over and over again. If we can fix that in some way, then, you know, I think the vision in 10 years is to have a sector that's responding more effectively and transparently and sustainably and equitably to people in need.
Lars Peter Nissen:So I know you say you're not disruptors, however, I am going to pull you back into the space and just ask a couple of questions. So let's say you actually scale and that, let's say 30% of all humanitarian assistance is delivered through Needslist. How many licensing... How many organizations will license your software in that situation? Or in other words, are we going to... are you going to move towards a few sort of... a few really big ones that do this? Or is it going to be d-... How does that play out?
Natasha Fridus:It's a really good strategy question, Lars. I think it's really hard to scale this without buy in from some of the larger organizations. And so that's really been our focus is securing a couple large scale deployments of the software that can be used in multiple locations as opposed to trying to sell a license to every single city or every... you know, it's just not... it's too slow. And sale cycles for public sector, especially, are very slow. So, in terms of how we get to that vision, I think there's a number of ways that can play out. And frankly, if it ends up being that there is a large organization or a company that says, We can... We believe in this and we can do it, you know, much faster than you can, we're open to that. We are open to different kinds of collaborations or models that will reach the goal, it does not have to be that needs list is some $10 billion company in 10 years that has licenses all over. For us, what's important is that this technology and this approach can help change the way that aid is delivered.
Lars Peter Nissen:The reason I ask is that when you talk about cash-based assistance, for example, it's clear that there are economies of scale there and that it lends itself very well towards a couple of organizations handling that, and that that would essentially mean that a number of NGOs see greatly reduced turnover, or maybe even, you know, disappear. Now, you can make two arguments, you can say, that's not a problem, that's great, actually, it's more efficient, more aid will get out to the users. Or you could say it's a real problem if we kill the diversity of the humanitarian ecosystem and pump everything through one channel. That really creates some vulnerabilities. And I think my question is, do you... I know it's early days. But do you see a similar effect if you are successful in scaling Needslist, that a few big actors is actually the organizational architecture we need? We don't need several hundreds.
Amanda Levinson:Are you talking about the... Just to clarify, you're talking about the need for competition?
Lars Peter Nissen:Well, I think it's more like if you go to your Groundhog Day, right, you have, you know, you have several 100 Bill Murray's. Right, there're a lot of organizations running around doing more or less the same thing. Now, is what you're doing creating a solution that actually will eliminate a good chunk of those because it's more efficient and because it lends itself well to economies of scale, so that if you scale, it will also change the nature of the NGOs. That's a question I think... I senses on many people's minds.
Amanda Levinson:It's not our intention to put NGOs out of business, if that's if that's a question. That's actually not something that ever really occurred to me. I mean, it'd be great if we had no need for NGOs working in the sector, because we didn't have you know, the types of humanitarian crisis. But we know that's not going to happen, right. We know that crises are just growing. If anything, there's going to be a need for more solutions, not, you know, not fewer solutions. And I think that, again, you know, the one of the things that we really want to do with the software is encourage coordination and collaboration. And there's so many question marks that that go along with that. So I don't know that I can actually answer that question. I don't know if you have anything to add Tasha.
Natasha Fridus:No, no, I think that's that's a much bigger question. That is... I think it's going to be... it's too early to respond to that. I think, if that's what it takes to be more efficient, sure. If we can identify needs and we get those needs met more efficiently, and we don't need as many organizations, sure. If there's a way to raise the profile of local organizations, that would be the goal and if that means reducing the number of the mid-sized NGOs or larger NGOs, I'm all for that, frankly.
Lars Peter Nissen:Great. Great answer. Amanda and Natasha, thank you so much for coming on Trumanitarian. It's been a great conversation. It's so exciting what you're doing. It's it's fantastic to see the potential in terms of localization. It's fantastic to see the way in which you can suddenly give agency to organizations that we often exclude from the mainstream humanitarian system or that tend to get squashed in the big game if you want. And so I wish you all the best of luck with your company in the years to come and I look forward to seeing the Needslist pop up in all the operations I'll visit in the future.
Amanda Levinson:Thank you so much for having us. It's been a pleasure.
Natasha Fridus:Thank you, Lars.