Would use code 1 parent when mentioning upwards to the programme…
(and obvious disclaimer, we are just discussing this openly and transparently – we’re not validating anybody!)
@stevieflow @stolk I would not use the related-activity elements to model flows between organisations. Since within a federation of organisations, you have actual fiancial transactions between the organisation members and these members are separate legal entities with their own IATI identifier. I.m.o. you should use transactions to model these actual money transfers and limit the use of the related activity (types parent-childs) within an organisation.
The programme structure of activities within a federation or alliance, can be modeled with transactions. An example is the Both Ends alliance, where the programme level activity is maintained by Both Ends, and the project type interventions are being maintained by the partners funded by Both Ends.
@pelleaardema: do you have any additional thoughts on this?
Programme activities @Oxfam confederation level would not have financial transactions…
@stevieflow @stolk I wouldn’t use related-activity parent/child/sibling relationships between members of a federated organisation. The related-activities, help mark internal transfers of money within a single organisation/(primary) publisher. For @stolk’s example, as I understand, this is not the case.
Just wanted to flag what the standard says on related-activity:
Another separately reported IATI activity that is related to this one.
I think that supports both use-cases. Are we now in the realm of a difference between reference documentation (what is written down for all) and implementation guidance (what is done in context)?
@amys and @stevieflow If referring to a single set of level one activities across our our confederation is not an option, all affiliates will have to include repetitions of the hierachy one activities in their individual data sets. Such repetion is undesirable isn’t it?
Ok, so programmes @Oxfam are used to group related activities, but not for financial planning?
indeed, at this stage, that’s where we are. …
Regions or country level strategic intentions (5 yr) are expressed in sets of three - five programmes (focus choices) each. with tiles, descriptions, etc.
Financial and result intentions are set per country/region per ‘programme’ in annual operating plan,
However actual transactions, income and expenditures are recorded at project level across affiliates that contribute to these programmes.
So programmes ‘belong’ to the collective aka the confederation, the projects belong to and are administrated in, the various confederations affiliates.
I do like that this thread over three years old, 24 posts long, and still not at consensus!
I think we can learn lessons from this around the potential complexity of rulesets and validation of - and this might be a simple case!
We got to this very same question: should
related-activity be used to point / link between activities published by different
Having reread this thread, I think our position is:
- most cases suggest that
related-activityshould be reserved for pointing within a publisher dataset
- however, there’s a case to suggest otherwise:
– when a publisher is a part of a federation / network of organisations, and needs to relate to an activity (published by another
reporting-org) that provides more context
– similarly, when a donor is publishing alongside another donor, and needs to signal that their funding is connected
And that, brings the codes for “co-funded” and “third-party” into question.
However, as @herman confirmed, use of
related-activity outside of the scope would mean a fail of Netherlands MFA validation rules, although not render the data useless
So… I’m still not sure we have a Best Practice on use of this element. As more publishers create and connect data, it strikes me we need something…
Isn’t this (best) expressed in the data as funding going to the same activity? In other words, by the recipient indicating both donors’ incoming funds to this activity and/or both donors indicating which recipient’s activity their funding goes to?
I had always interpreted related activity as being for situations where activities were related e.g. in terms of objectives, joint planning etc, but where there were no financial flows that would already have allowed that link to be made, whether it was between different donors, within a donors portfolio etc.
Perhaps more importantly, do we know many publishers who have a publishing process where they lookup the activity codes of either related activities or activities/org codes from other publishers that they are funding? If not, all this is a bit optimistic no?
IOM had a few conversations with a few of our donors while at TAG and off-line. Knowing the donor reference is often known at the time the donor agreements are signed. We don’t currently have a place to store that info such that it can easily be pulled into our IATI data set but we are working on it.
Expecting us to look it up after the fact is ambitious. Particularly when some of our donors don’t publish their donations to us until after we’ve published the projects they have funded. We be playing catch up most of the time.
The challenge we face (may not be an issue for others) is that we don’t know what our project ID will be at the time of signing the agreements. That would require a follow up to communicate that information back to the donor if they want to reference our IDs. That too is ambitious I believe but would be a possible solution for linking two donors to the same project.
It is imperfect but our plan was to use the participating-org/@activity-id or provider-org/@provider-activity-id elements/attributes/?? when we do. Our (perhaps incorrect) understanding of related-activity wasn’t for this purpose. If you “experts” tell me otherwise, we still have time to course correct as we don’t yet publish this info.
That’s a challenge we identified as well when trying to figure out how to get activity IDs. My very simple suggestion: put your activity ID (and org ID for that matter) on all your communications to the donor, especially reports. Very little cost, no risk, and tremendously useful if the donor ever wants the info.
We do and always have but that doesn’t mean the donor does anything with it that makes its way into IATI.
Maybe I am missing something in the workflow here, but isn’t it always the case that at the moment of signing the contract/agreement, the donor knows their own funding activity-id? In that case the recipient can always point back to the donor’s activity-id (which is mentioned in the contract). So the key point here is to point upward in the funding chain and not downward, since that would require the donor to refer to not (yet) existing activities.
Herman - you aren’t missing anything. What you suggest is completely possible assuming the recipient system has a place to store that data. My point was only that it would only work in one direction and thus might not help all users depending upon what direction they are coming from along the chain. I would have thought that ideally both donor and recipient would cross-reference one another so the traceability could work in either direction.
As you point out @Michelle_IOM it is already possible for donor and recipients to cross reference each other and the IATI Standard does already make provision for that to happen. However, as @Herman has mentioned (and it was also my understanding) I think that the original intention for traceability within IATI was just to trace upwards within the funding chain? As @Herman and @YohannaLoucheur have pointed out a donor or funder can generally provide their own originating IATI activity identifier to the recipient via contract documentation and/ or as part of the contract management business process etc .
Interestingly, some of our most recent work within the Grand Bargain (particularly around issues relating to Localisation) is highlighting that there would indeed be value in being to be able to trace both ‘up’ and ‘down’ the funding chain. Presumably for this it happen, Donors and other funders would need to regularly ‘harvest’ the recipient activity identifiers and add them into their own systems. I think this process could certainly be automated and it would also provide donors with an automatic confirmation or validation that recipients have also now published the receipt of that funding to IATI? As a result I would be very interested to hear any views from donors or others on the practicalities and appetite (or lack of?) for making this happen?
NB as this question is moving away from the original post topic I am happy to move this post to a new topic if required
@Wendy +1 for starting a new thread. The reciprocal links question is v interesting, but it’s sufficiently different to this