 Llywodraeth Benjwyd, fy nghymru yw'n syniad wedi gwaith, rydyn ni'n meddwl y byddai'r cyfrannu yw'r awddiant yn 2015, ydych chi'n mynd i'r awddiant'r newid mewn prydyn yma? Mae'r ddych chi'n mynd i'r awddiant. Mae yma'r awddiant yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch mewn prydyn? Rydyn ni'n ymgyrch yn ymgyrch. Rydyn ni'n meddwl fan yw'r gwybod a'r rei fwyaf sydd wedi'i gweithiau'r mewn prydyn i'r awddiant i'w ddweud y gwahanol arall. A'r bwysig bwysig ar y bach yn gweithio'r ddweud yw'r ffordd yn fwy o'r ffordd o'r progect, yw'r gweithio ffyrdd o'r cyfnodau ac ymgyrch, sy'n dweud yw'r cyffredd yn unig ym mhyself ymgyrch yn y ffyrdd. Mae'r cyffredd yn ymwysig o'r cyffredd yw'r 2014 yn ymddi'r ystod o'r ystod o'r ystod o'r cyfnodd yma o'r cyfnodd yma. Felly, o'r hynny'n gweithio'r ysgrifennu cyfnodd, rydyn ni'n gweithio'r ysgrifennu Cyfnodd, yn y South East of the Central African Republic. Felly, yna'r cyfnodd yn cyfnodd yn Google Maps, yna'r cyfnodd yn ymddi. Fasily, mae'n gweithio'r cyfnodd. Felly, yna'r cyfnodd yn cyfnodd, i amgylchedddunio'n cyfnodd gyda ffwyllwyr tynnu amgylcheddwyr ar y maen dweud peithio'r cyfnodd fel maen o'r cythwyng pennaf. Ydyn ni'n gweithio erbyn yma, y dweud o'r cyfnodd yn yma, mae'r cyfnodd yn teimlo'r Ysgrifennu Cyfnodd yn iawn. Felly, yn ymwylltechrau i'r ymddi, yng nghymru cael ddweud. Felly, rwy'n ei wneud, dyken, mae'n gweithio'r iechydau i am ddyn ni'n ymwyllty nhw, pathways, basic facilities, airstrips, llawer. So, missing maps has three main strands of work to do these tasks. The first one being remote mapping, which is where groups of volunteer mappers gather in mapathons usually and map satellite imagery into open street maps. The second is field mapping, where missing maps to members is deployed to conduct mapping on the ground, often with collaboration with local mapping communities. And the third is integrated field mapping, which is a combined approach, again involving the deployment of missing maps to members to train and support local NGO staff and MSF staff to conduct mapping on the ground themselves. So, up to now, there's basically many metrics that could deem this project to be a success, some numbers. So, there's been over 25,000 contributors who've made over 28 million edits and put over 320,000 buildings and over 1 million kilometres of road on the map. Sounds pretty good. But the question still remained, has this really added value for MSF's activities in the field? So, this review was agreed with the primary objective of documenting the added value of missing maps for MSF in the field. And then, very broadly, with the aim of also looking at what worked, what didn't work, in order to inform the future strategy and direction of missing maps and setting up ongoing monitoring and evaluation. On methods, basically this involved documenting missing maps' activities to date and then an in-depth qualitative review of six activities through 17 in-depth interviews. Here, just very briefly, is an overview of the activities and the participants, basically including a wide range of participants from different levels within MSF, different positions in both national and international staff. On the overview, 42 mapping activities were documented over 14 countries. It's interesting to note here that this represents very roughly a third of missing maps' activities, the others being commissioned or requested through other organisations like the Red Cross. The most map countries were DRC Sierra Leone and South Sudan and the majority of mapping was pre-emptive, so around 69%, which meant that it was requested mapping of an area that was identified as potentially vulnerable to outbreaks in the future. And then 31% of the requests were for reactive mapping, so responding to a specific operational need. And then, just briefly on the graph, you can see again that the most requests were for general base maps, so satellite maps for general pre-emptive purposes. So, from this, three clear levels of use emerged, the first being basically a map as a map, just having a map for orientation purposes and to know the area MSF is working in. The second was having a map in support of a specific punctual intervention, so your surveys, your assessments, your vaccination campaigns, for example, and particularly used as ways of calculating population estimates and supporting sample-sized calculations for epidemiological surveys. And the last was for ongoing surveillance and decision-making when the maps were integrated with medical data analysis. So, in terms of results, what was the added value? So, starting from a field perspective, for the participants, a very clear added value was improved orientation, as I said, just knowing the area. And participants also described that without maps, that they often felt blind, which had detrimental effects on the activities in the field. Secondly, the maps contributed to more targeted, accurate and efficient activities. So, the surveys and the assessments, for example, were seen to be more robust and more rigorous by the participants. Also, they noted that MSF team members saved time because they didn't have to worry about mapping or calculating the population sizes manually, for example. It was also highly valued when maps enabled the contextualisation and visualisation of medical data. This was particularly when maps were combined with GIS technology or custom-made ad hoc tools that were developed in the missions, even using Excel, for example, of ways to combine medical and geographical data. Then, at more at an organisational level, many of the participants felt that missing maps added a value in the way that it engaged with civil society and harnessed volunteer capacity. This was felt to be something a bit new for MSF and also reflect the great potential crowdsourcing or co-production has for the organisation in the future. It was also seen to contribute to the global mapping agenda, so facilitating potentially the work of other organisations and also some participants felt just supporting the basic human right of people to be on the map. Here, there is one quote from one of our participants talking about vaccination coverage. We can produce a map of vaccination coverage and we can see that this area has been covered well and there is a gap here. If we have the geographical data, we can say, yes, okay, here we have an area where we do vaccination, but here it's totally forgotten. So then we can adapt the strategy and implement some vaccination in that area. So in this way it was seen to be influencing the organisation of activities like this. Secondly, in terms of the results, what made it work? Again, starting at field level, clearly people in the field with the capacity and motivation to map and to champion mapping were critical. It was interesting here that the very organic way that mapping and missing maps use had grown within MSF as people moved between missions and taking with them their expertise and encouraging others to map. Secondly, base maps were appreciated, but mapping was much more valued when it was combined with either field mapping, so qualitative data collected in the field, such as water points, schools, health centres, for example, or when it was combined with ways of visualising medical data like GIS. A lot of examples of that are outside. And lastly, mapping was optimised when it was a team effort, so when it was really interdisciplinary within the field teams, including logistics, health promotion, outreach, epidemiologists, and also when it involved collaboration with the local community, which was perceived to contribute to the accuracy and relevance of the maps, and was also, by some participants, seen as a useful activity in itself as a way to engage with local community and build relationships. Then from the missing maps perspective, participants really valued the quick and responsive support provided by the coordination and the positive relationship, and the openness to finding dynamic and creative solutions to specific field needs. Lastly, just simply producing a high quality product and using simple technology was appreciated by participants. Another quote here, describing using the maps combined with GIS technology, so whatever line list or database you have of an outbreak or disease, it will pick out your household or your row or your block or your village and just create lots of dots on the map. Then immediately, where cases are clustering and you can create movies so you can see it over time, where the disease is spreading to, whether it's spreading uniformly everywhere or whether it's really clustering in one corner of the camp. Then you can immediately say, well, the problem's over there, it just helps us to investigate and hone in on where the issues might be. Lastly, the interesting bit. What were the challenges? Again, at field level, one of the main challenges was that it was very clear that there was a real lack of knowledge and awareness of missing maps and the options available. Even people who'd been involved in mapping activities weren't necessarily aware of the different services or the different uses of mapping products. For many participants, there was a general air of mystery about missing maps. Was it MSF? Is it not MSF? Who do you contact? These kind of things were often very unclear to people. Also, how to meaningfully integrate medical data with maps, so to go from a map as a map to really using it as a tool for decision making was for some challenging. And also how to use maps sustainably. Again, this was seen as another victim, potentially of international staff turnover in the fields. Some national staff involved mentioned that they were collecting a lot of data in the field to see products of this work. Then, at a more organisational and missing maps level, the main challenges were unclear responsibilities, communication channels and structure. For some people, it was unclear how missing maps fitted within MSF and particularly how it fitted with the work of the GIS unit based in Geneva. It was also linked to the communication needs of working with volunteers, for example, a lot of social media communication needed. For that was sometimes problematic in the more sensitive areas where MSF is working. Lastly, a lack of operational buy-in was also stated by some participants as a barrier. Many reasons were given to this, given for this, for example, MSF is an emergency organisation. Why are we doing preemptive mapping? We've made it this far without missing maps. Do we really need to add another layer of complexity and technology to our operations? This culture of missing maps is very crowd sourced social media heavy. Is this MSF culture? Does it fit with the MSF culture? Again, just focusing on the quote on the right, as one participant mentioned, missing maps is more about preemptive mapping. Convincing operations sometimes can be tricky because they don't see the added value because it's not the MSF culture to have that kind of analysis. Ultimately, it's hard to change the way people take decisions. To sum up, this review suggests that missing maps has had a great value in terms of quality, focus and efficiency of MSF activities in the field. As one participant summed up, without missing maps, MSF would still do its job well. The doctor would still be a doctor, but it's improved for sure. Here, looking at missing maps through the lens of innovation gives some interesting reflections on the state of the project now. The success factors and challenges that I mentioned, rather than being particular to missing maps, are in a way characteristic of a lot of innovative initiatives and their stage in the innovation process. This is particularly linked to what's been referred to as innovations missing middle, like humanitarian organisations pilot new initiatives, but are unsure when to call it a success or a failure, if to scale it up, how to scale it up. It's also linked to the humanitarian space for innovation and our organisational cultures running a large and sorry, running a large and complex organisation like MSF, forgive me. I jump one line. It's coming, forgive me. It's a slip. Running a large and complex organisation like MSF requires structure, standardisation and bureaucracy to a degree and risk management. Change can be slow, particularly when it's linked to how we manage data and how we make decisions and a roll out of a new initiative can be heavy. Is MSF ready for these changes and how does MSF decide when to make these changes with a new project? To sum up. Basically, it's clear that decisions around missing maps and a strategy are needed to optimise the added value. It's clear that roles, relationships and structure need to be clarified. Visibility needs to be increased, including adequate resources and establishing ongoing monitoring. Very briefly on limitations, it's clear that a challenge with this is that there is no baseline data nor any indicators of success to measure against for this review. It's qualitative so the results aren't generalisable. In some of the activities we reviewed GIS was also involved so delineating between the added value of missing maps and GIS is hard to draw but it's clear the two combined is very powerful. Thank you very much to all who participated. Thank you very much. Thank you.