Page cover

1.3 Understanding Organizational Structures in IM

Touching on different Organization Structures and where IM sits.

In every humanitarian or development organization, Information Management (IM) plays a critical role — but where IM "sits" inside the organizational structure can vary widely. Understanding these variations is important because where IM is positioned affects how information flows, how decisions are made, and how data supports programming.

IM is not a one-size-fits-all function; depending on an organization’s size, mandate, and structure, IM responsibilities might be centralized, decentralized, embedded within program teams, or coordinated through technical support units.

1.3.1 Common Models for Organizing IM

Here are some of the main ways IM is typically organized in humanitarian organizations:

Centralized IM Units

  • IM staff are grouped together in a dedicated unit (e.g., an "IM Unit" or "Data and Analytics Team") at the country, regional, or global level.

  • They provide standardized support services across the organization — such as managing centralized databases, data visualization platforms, or shared reporting systems.

  • This model promotes consistency, standardization, and strong technical specialization.

However, if not well connected to program teams, centralized IM units risk becoming detached from operational realities.

Embedded IM within Program Teams

  • IM staff (e.g., IM Officers or IM Specialists) are integrated directly into sectoral teams (e.g., WASH, Shelter, Protection).

  • They manage program-specific data flows — from assessments to reporting — closely aligned with field activities.

  • This structure ensures IM is closely linked to programming and better responds to day-to-day operational needs.

However, embedding IM in program teams can sometimes lead to inconsistent approaches if standards and tools aren't harmonized across sectors.

Hybrid Structures

  • A combination of centralized technical leadership (e.g., a national IM Coordinator) and decentralized field-based IM Officers embedded in program teams.

  • This hybrid model allows for standardization at the strategic level, while keeping IM responsive at the operational level.

Many larger INGOs and UN agencies use this hybrid model to balance efficiency and field relevance.

IM through MEAL or M&E Units

  • In some organizations, IM is housed under the Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability, and Learning (MEAL) function.

  • Here, IM focuses heavily on data needed for monitoring frameworks, indicators, and evaluations.

  • While this approach ensures strong links to learning and accountability, it can sometimes underemphasize broader program data management needs like assessments, targeting, or operational coordination data.

IM within ICT or Digital Transformation Teams

  • In some newer models, IM is partially embedded within ICT or innovation teams that manage digital platforms, data protection systems, and connectivity infrastructure.

  • This reflects the increasing digitalization of IM processes (e.g., mobile data collection apps, cloud storage, real-time dashboards).

  • While this can strengthen technical capacities, there is a risk of overemphasizing technology over program relevance if IM is seen purely as a tech function.

1.3.2 Factors Influencing IM Structures

Several factors influence how and where IM is positioned in an organization:

  • Size and complexity of operations (larger organizations often need both centralized and decentralized structures).

  • Funding and resources available for IM staffing and systems.

  • Organizational priorities — whether focused more on technical quality, accountability, or operational scale.

  • Capacity of program teams to manage information independently or with support.

  • Data protection and compliance obligations requiring centralized control.

1.3.3 IM Across Country, Regional, and Global Levels

IM in humanitarian organizations typically operates at three interconnected levels: Country Office, Regional Office, and Global Headquarters. Each level has distinct roles but must coordinate to ensure data quality, consistency, and alignment with programmatic goals.

Country Level (Field/Country Offices)

  • Primary responsibility for data collection and local analysis

  • IM roles (e.g. IMO, Data Officer) support day-to-day programme implementation, reporting, and coordination with local clusters

  • Responsible for adapting tools and workflows to the operational context

  • Often the first point of contact for data quality assurance and protection risks

  • Engage closely with MEAL and programme teams

Example: An IMO in a country office may manage participant registration data, generate dashboards for project managers, and contribute to 5Ws for cluster coordination.

Regional Level (Support or Hub Offices)

Note: Not all organizations have a formal regional layer. Where present, it plays a coordination and support role between country and global levels.

  • Provide technical backstopping and capacity building to country teams

  • Ensure regional harmonization of tools, templates, and processes

  • May host senior IM specialists who develop or review SOPs and indicators

  • Support cross-border or multi-country data initiatives and regional analysis

Example: A regional IM Advisor may consolidate data from multiple countries for a regional donor report or roll out a shared IM toolkit.

Global Level (Headquarters or Global Units)

  • Set strategic direction, policies, and standards for IM

  • Develop and maintain core tools and platforms (e.g. databases, dashboards, digital systems)

  • Lead on inter-agency coordination, global reporting frameworks, and innovation (e.g. AI, predictive analytics)

  • Support data responsibility, protection compliance (e.g. GDPR), and global capacity development

Example: A global IM team may lead the rollout of an organization-wide data platform or standardize program indicators across all country operations.

1.3.4 Coordination Across Levels

Strong IM depends on clear communication and feedback loops between these levels:

  • Country offices provide ground-level insight

  • Regional teams offer support and alignment (where applicable)

  • Global teams provide infrastructure, governance, and innovation

Clear roles, responsibilities, and escalation paths help ensure IM systems are scalable, sustainable, and responsive to both field and organizational needs.

1.3.5 Key Takeaways

  • There is no single "correct" structure for organizing IM — each organization adapts its IM approach based on its operational needs and context.

  • However, whatever the model, IM must be positioned close enough to programming to stay relevant, while maintaining technical standards to ensure quality, ethics, and protection.

  • Strong IM structures balance technical excellence, field relevance, and organizational learning.

  • Clear definition of roles and responsibilities, and strong coordination across levels (country, regional, and global level) is essential to ensure consistent, efficient, and ethical information management. To learn more about how responsibilities are assigned and resourced, please refer to , especially 3.2 Distribution of IM Roles in Operational Setups.

Why This Matters for Programme IM

Throughout this handbook, when we talk about IM responsibilities, we assume a flexible approach:

  • Sometimes IM will be supported by a dedicated IM Officer.

  • Sometimes IM tasks will be part of a broader MEAL, program, or ICT role.

  • Sometimes IM will require coordination between multiple teams.

Understanding where IM fits in your organization helps you advocate for the right resources, build effective workflows, and ensure programme data is managed responsibly and efficiently.

REFERENCES & FURTHER READINGS:

Last updated