Understanding MFIs Reporting Burden

Microfinance Information Exchange

Understanding MFIs Reporting Burden

A study of the reporting burden for microfinance providers in sub-Saharan Africa

Written by: Bryan Barnett, Ph.D., Consultant

Table of Contents Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ 3 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 5 Methodology 5 The Reporting Process 5 I Collecting Data 6 II Aggregating the Data 7 III Extraction and Summarization 8 IV Consolidation and Formatting 8 V Delivery 10 VI Improving the Reporting Process10 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 13

MicroBanking Bulletin

August 2011

Page 2

Acknowledgements A special thank you to Audrey Linthorst (MIX) for support of the data collection efforts and review of the report Thanks to Normand Arsenault, Tiphaine Crenn, Clara Fosu and Cyrus Ngoma for fostering the relationship and conducting interviews with the participating MFIs We would like to extend a special thank you to the MFIs in Sub-Saharan Africa that took part in our research study We would also link to thank The MasterCard Foundation, who is committed to strengthening the microfinance industry, particularly in Africa

MicroBanking Bulletin

August 2011

Page 3

Executive Summary To better understand the burden that external reporting places on MFIs, MIX conducted a research study focused on SubSaharan Africa The study included interviews with MFI executives, an online survey, and narratives collected from MFI staff involved in report preparation It focused especially on the collection and management of data related to loan/ savings portfolios as well as accounting and financial data, and addressed reports to regulators, funders and investors, and networks or associations. Key findings of the study include: Computer systems for portfolio management and accounting are widespread, with commercial off-the-shelf systems now predominating over custom built applications While many specialized applications combine portfolio management and accounting functions, many institutions still use different applications from which data must be merged and manually reconciled for reports Most institutions use multiple methods to move data from branches to home offices, with more than a third relying on some combination of email and hand delivery Even institutions which have fully networked real-time systems in place often do not have these systems in place at all branches For slightly more than half of respondents, automated reports from IT systems were no more than a starting point in the preparation of reports, which required substantial additional effort to finalize. Our data suggest that half of all respondents are preparing more than 28 separate reports annually, with many preparing substantially more than that All stakeholders tend to be interested in the same information in their reports, which must nevertheless be submitted in varied formats, which accounts for a substantial part of the time spent on report preparation Respondents reported that on average 3-5 people are involved in the preparation of stakeholder reports resulting in a conservative estimate of 57 person-days of effort expended annually on report preparation for the median MFI (or roughly one-quarter of a full-time employees workload) Email is the dominant method of submitting reports, while paper forms delivered by post or hand delivery are still a significant percentage, particularly for reports to regulators.

MicroBanking Bulletin

August 2011

Page 4

Introduction It is widely accepted that better reporting of operational and financial data by microfinance institutions would benefit both the institutions themselves and other stakeholders Ask almost any MFI, though, and they will tell you that reporting is a real burden, especially when many have to prepare twenty or thirty reports a year Of course, no one is going to stop requesting reports merely because its a burden for the MFIs If the burden could be reduced though, it would increase the both the quality and timeliness of reports while allowing MFIs to devote more resources to building their business With this goal in mind, MIX set out to better understand the reporting process from the MFIs perspective The study focused on sub-Saharan Africa because reporting among institutions there is less consistent than other regions, suggesting that the challenges of reporting are particularly significant. As shown in Figure 1, our research looked at four types of information commonly reported and the three groups of external stakeholders that most commonly receive reports1 We placed special emphasis on the two important categories of information that all MFIs must track and report (abbreviated as follows): Loan/savings portfolio data (abbreviated as L/S in this report) Financial/accounting data (abbreviated as F/A in this report)

Figure 1: Types of Information Reported

Whattypesofinformationdoyoureporttoexternal stakeholders?

SocialPerformance

Operations

UnauditedFin.

AuditedFin.

0%

20% Networks

40%

60% Investors

80%

100%

Regulators

received 160 responses Finally, we asked a number of staff engaged in preparing reports to provide us with narratives describing the process within their institutions The result is a composite picture compiled from these sources The institutions in the online survey were not a random sample They were nonetheless selected to be generally representative of different types and sizes of institutions across SSA Results, therefore, are only illustrative But, taken as a whole, the results offer a good overall picture of the challenges and opportunities for improving the reporting process Responses were roughly evenly distributed among small, medium and large-scale MFIs, with a similar number of unknown either due to non-identification by the respondent or lack of data on outreach At least 75% of the responses were from MFIs that do not maintain profiles on MIX Market. The survey distribution list covered some 600 institutions, including MIX Market participants and non-participants The survey was delivered in English and French for a twoweek period in each case The English-language survey received 93 responses, while the French version received 67 responses

As Figure 1 shows, regulators, funders and investors, and networks and associations, all requested similar information, with regulators and investors somewhat more interested in financial and operational data and networks or associations relatively more interested in social performance data But overall, the differences are not that great All external stakeholders tend to be interested in the same types of information In this report, we pay relatively little attention to audited financial statements because they are prepared and delivered by independent auditors and therefore are not prospects for adjustment or improvement All other types of reports (and the processes that generate the data behind the reports) are considered here

Methodology
For our study we conducted a series of interviews with senior staff at a representative group of institutions, followed by an online survey The survey was sent to over 1000 contacts at MFIs across the continent and
1

The Reporting Process

Submitting a report to an external stakeholder is the final step in a complex process in which data on customers, transactions, MFI personnel, and the like originates with customers and staff and moves through the organization in a series of five stages.

In charts throughout this report percentages often total to more than 100% because respondents selected multiple responses to the question

MicroBanking Bulletin

August 2011

Page 5

Table of Respondents to Online Survey # of respondents Scale Large Medium Small (unknown) Grand Total Visible 46 30 45 6 127 12 12 21 21 MIX market status No profile (Unknown) Grand Total 46 30 45 39 160

1 Collection: Data is generated as clients are enrolled, loans disbursed, repayments made, savings deposited or withdrawn, etc Crucially, some data must be manually collected (such as client profiles and financial history), while other data is generated more or less automatically in the course of processing loan or savings transactions, enrolling employees, etc 2 Aggregation: From the point of collection (normally interaction with a loan officer or teller) data is entered into some form of record-keeping system, possibly paper or spreadsheets, but most often computerized portfolio management and accounting systems (which may be combined in a single application) This step also involves moving data from branches to the head office. 3 Extraction & Summarization: Once gathered into one or more centralized repositories, data are selected and rolled up into summary totals or calculated ratios In principle, this process can draw data from a single comprehensive repository, but, in practice, data are often pulled from multiple systems or sources, producing several interim tallies 4 Consolidation & Formatting: The specific set of information required by each particular stakeholder is then taken from interim reports and consolidated into the specific report format required by each stakeholder This necessarily involves reformatting data, but may also involve recalculation 5 Delivery: Finally, the completed stakeholder report is delivered, by hand, by post, by email, or by direct submission to a stakeholders website In the pages that follow we look in more detail at each of the five steps outlined above in light of the information

gathered in our interviews and surveys with MFIs in Africa, with special attention to feasible changes that can make the process more efficient and less burdensome. I. Collecting Data

Most of the key business data in a microfinance institution originates with customers It often starts with paper records used by loan officers to collect customer information or record cash transactions At this stage, the greater concern is not for the efficiency of collection, so much as for the accuracy of the information collected Pre-printed forms and ledgers are virtually universal, but the opportunity for error is great, so substantial manual re-checking is typically required before anything is entered into a computer The initial manual verification and reconciliation takes place at the branch, before the information is passed on to intermediate regional offices or the head office, and it can take several hours a day depending on the caseload of loan officers and the procedures required. Speeding up this process frees up more time for loan officers to spend serving customers, which translates into greater loan officer efficiency. But greater efficiency should not come at the price of accuracy or completeness of the data Technology offers an obvious strategy to improve this process Laptop computers are generally not practical in the field, but mobile phones, especially so-called smart phones with the ability to run fully functional applications, have the potential to automate some of the paper process and produce greater accuracy These phones are still not widely available in much of SSA, but recent announcements by RIM (makers of Blackberry phones) and others on the planned release of lower-cost smart phones in Africa suggests that these devices will soon come within reach of MFIs2 Software makers will be eager to take advantage
2

See: Mobile Marketing Trends: Smartphones Conquering Africa?, retrieved from http://internationaldigitalmarketing.com/2010/10/29/mobile-marketingtrends-smartphones-conquering-africa/ On 5/4/2011. Also http://www.brightstarcorp.com/news-room/press-releases/ brightstar-rim-africa/

MicroBanking Bulletin

August 2011

Page 6

Figure 2: How Data is Transmitted to the Head Office

Network,Email&HandDelivery Email+Handdelivery Network&HandDelivery Network&Email HandDelivery Email Realtime(NetworkedApplication) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% L/SData

long wished for a change in the vendors business model, and this may come about through the spread of so-called SaaS (Software-as-a-Service) as internet connectivity continues to improve For the moment, MFIs are forced to be inventive and move data to the head office as best they can The situation described by Sinapi Aba Trust illustrates the problem They cannot afford the USD 5,000 license for Temenos eMerge at all branches, so they use it only at a limited number of anchor branches Data from the remaining branches is recorded in spreadsheets and sent to the anchor branches via email, where it is validated (sometimes requiring phone calls to the originator) before being entered into Temenos One significant consequence of the varied ways that data travels to the head office is the time required for this to happen Undoubtedly, this partly explains the variation in frequency of transmitting data In our survey, nearly 40% of respondents indicated that either loan and savings or financial and accounting data were transmitted to the head office monthly. This is a very surprising result that invites further investigation monthly transfer of information makes rapid response difficult, at best. Interviewees described instances where data were hand carried by bicycle, requiring many days travel to reach the head office. Under those circumstances monthly transmission is understandable (if not at all desirable) Though perhaps not quickly or easily, essential data does invariably arrive at the head office where it is gathered into one or more centralized files or repositories. In our survey the vast majority of respondents report using some type of computer software for consolidation At one time many of these applications were custom built, but as Figure 3 shows, today the majority of MFIs use some type of commercial off the shelf (OTS) application. This is significant because these applications are much more likely to have robust reporting capabilities, Figure 3: How Data is Stored

F/A Data

of this opportunity and applications for the phones that integrate with portfolio management and banking systems will doubtless follow But for many institutions this will not change life very much if the next step in the process remains unchanged II. Aggregating the Data After data is collected or captured at the point of customer interaction it has very little value, until it is pooled with data from other customers and interactions As loan application forms, collection sheets, cash receipts and the like are gathered at branch offices, they are assembled, consolidated and passed on to the home office, where they are further consolidated into various storage repositories How easily this happens depends on telecommunications and technology, either of which can be a challenge for many MFIs We asked respondents in our survey how they transmitted both loan/savings (L/S) data and financial/accounting (F/A) data from branches to their head office. The combined results are shown in Figure 2 While internet connectivity is nearly universal at head offices, the situation in branch offices is often much different As the chart shows, about one third of institutions are using networked applications to transmit data in real time Yet, email and hand delivery are nearly as common Most important, nearly one in three institutions is using more than one method, with email and hand delivery being the most popular combination The lack of consistent use of networked software applications (which deliver data in real time) is only partly the result of poor connectivity Many software applications require a separate license for each user Deploying the software other than at the head office or regional offices is often too expensive. MFIs have

OTSapplication Customapplication Spreadsheets Paper 0% 20% F/A Data 40% 60% L/SData 80%

MicroBanking Bulletin

August 2011

Page 7

which are a significant advantage at this stage of report preparation3 While there are now a number of commercially available applications that combine functions, a significant number of institutions still use separate applications for both portfolio management and accounting information In our survey, 71% of those responding said they used a single integrated package for both accounting and portfolio management, while another 29% use different applications (or perhaps a single computer application combined with spreadsheets) Where separate applications are used for portfolio management and accounting, data are often moved between them manually Thus, as described by Adok Timo, their accounting system (Quickbooks) is not integrated with the MIS system and the IT staff has to print all accounting entries from the MIS and give it to the accounting department for them to manually post4 Even where portfolio management and accounting are managed in the same application, care must be taken to insure that the two systems are synchronized As one interviewee commented regarding their (integrated) system, figures pulled from different reports sometimes differ. For example, the portfolio figure in the balance sheet is different from that in the portfolio report With the raw data gathered into one or more central repositories, and discrepancies identified and addressed, an MFI is in finally in position to begin creating reports to stakeholders To turn raw customer and transaction data into information that anyone can use, it must be sampled, extracted and summarized As simple as it sounds, the process occupies multiple people and substantial time III. Extraction and Summarization A report is nothing more than a summary of a selected subset of all the data available. Reports are potentially infinitely variable depending upon different needs and preferences MFIs compile a large number of reports annually, for board members, regulators, investors, funders, networks and associations For each of these, the MFI must pull a select subset of required data available from each of the several systems mentioned above For those institutions using specialized software packages, the process starts with running one or more automated reports from these systems As noted above, where separate software is used for portfolio management and accounting respectively, these intermediate reports originate in different systems and must subsequently be combined manually This, in turn,
3

requires verification that data is consistent between the two systems, which must be determined through a manual audit process, as noted earlier Depending on the requirements of the stakeholder report being prepared, data may have to be collected from other sources as well, including audit reports, bank statements, regulatory filings, human resource systems, or systems used for tracking social performance What results is a series of partial or intermediate summaries from different sources that constitute the raw material from which a final report will be constructed IV. Consolidation and Formatting With initial summaries and tabulations of data from any required sources in hand, this information must then be organized into the form and format required by the specific recipient. In an ideal world, all the data required for any stakeholder report would be housed in a single repository and the process of preparing reports could be almost completely automated In reality, this is not the case today In our survey we asked respondents to tell us how much they relied on automated reports from portfolio management or accounting systems The results are shown in Figure 4 Nearly half said that standard automated reports were mostly, if not completely, sufficient. But for slightly more than half of respondents, automated reports are at best a starting point, requiring additional work The required forms and formats of external reports vary widely and invariably require manual preparation Data are consolidated from different sources and tabulated or summarized in the form required by each stakeholder in what is perhaps the most laborintensive phase in the preparation of external reports

Figure 4: How much Reliance on Automated Reports

Sufficient

8.5%

Mostly sufficient

40.3%

AStartingPoint

41.1%

In addition to the built-in reporting capabilities in many portfolio management or accounting applications, there are separate specialized reporting applications that provide enhanced capabilities and can be used with many common business applications Crystal Reports or Pentaho (an open source reporting application) are examples As a consequence of this type of difficulty, Adok Timo is moving to an integrated system

LittleorNone - Manual

10.1%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

MicroBanking Bulletin

August 2011

Page 8

In the words of the CEOof one MFI (that employs a very advanced information system based on Microsoft Dynamics software), their system does not meet the requirements in that, although all data is available in it, it requires to be pulled from the system and then prepared manually to fit into the template and forms required to report to different stakeholders If this problem affects those with very advanced systems, it can only be worse among those with less sophisticated technology Whatever effort is required to produce a single report, the real impact of reporting is caused by the large number of Figure 5: The Number of People Working to Prepare Each Type of Report
Onaveragehowmanypeopleparticipateincreatingreports?

reports that most MFIs are required to prepare annually In our survey we asked MFIs to provide the total number of investors and funders as well as the number of networks or associations to which they submitted reports in the past year We then applied these totals to the MFIs estimate of the average frequency of filing to each category of stakeholders For example, sending reports to 6 investors and funders, on a quarterly basis, means an estimated total of 18 filings per year to this group of stakeholders. Applying this methodology across all categories of stakeholders we estimate that the MFIs in our survey are submitting an average of 39 reports annually5 The median for this was 28 reports annually, meaning that fully half of MFIs reporting are estimated to be filing more than 28 reports each year Beyond just the total number of reports filed, our survey sought to gauge the amount of time actually spent preparing reports after all data were initially aggregated at the head office. Estimating the time required is difficult, though Asking respondents to estimate time spent on a task for which they typically do not keep records is too subjective, while precise time-and-motion studies are too expensive We have therefore followed a middle path to arrive at an estimate, combining data from our survey with some conservative assumptions based on interviews and sector knowledge The survey asked respondents about the number of reports they submit to each of three external stakeholder groups: 1) regulators; 2) funders and investors; 3) networks or associations. We also asked how frequently (on average) each type of report is submitted From these two figures, we can estimate the total number of submissions made annually For example, reporting to

>8people

6-8people

3-5people

1-2people

0%

10% Regulators

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Investors/Funders

Networks/Associations

Estimating the Total Reporting Burden A significant majority of respondents suggested that at least three people were involved in report preparation generally, with three to five people being the most common. In our analysis of the survey results, we calculated separately for each respondent the number of reports, frequency and number of people involved In all instances, where the respondent indicated a range for the number of staff involved (for example 3-5 people), we use the lowest (ie, most conservative) figure. Combining these different figures together resulted in an initial formula as follows: [Number of stakeholders receiving reports] X [frequency per year] X [Number of personnel contributing to the report] What was missing then was an estimate of the actual amount of time spent by each individual on preparing a single report Here we are required to make an assumption, but one informed by conversations with MFI personnel in interviews On this basis, we estimate that the average person involved spends perhaps one half to one day on average preparing each report. So our final estimate looks like this: [Number of stakeholders receiving reports] X [frequency per year] X [Number of personnel contributing to the report] X [Days per person] = [Total person-days of labor spent on reporting]

For this calculation we included only those MFIs that reported data for all categories of stakeholders

MicroBanking Bulletin

August 2011

Page 9

three funders on a quarterly basis would mean submitting 12 reports a year At the same time, we asked respondents to estimate the number of people engaged in preparing each type of report Using the formula from the sidebar, applied to all respondents who provided data, we obtain the results shown in the table below In line with our assumption about the range of time spent on average by each participant, we provide three estimates assuming 05, 075, and 10 days of effort per person, respectively In addition we provide both average and median estimates because the average is influenced by several outliers. 0.5 day Average Median 65.7 37.8 0.75 day 98.5 56.6 1.0 day 131.3 75.5

Figure 6: How Reports are Submitted

Howdoyousubmitreports?

Uploadtowebsite Completewebform Handorpostaldelivery Email 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Regulators 100%

Networks/Associations

Funders/Investors

Fully half of those reporting spend the equivalent of one full-time staff working for several months In practice, many MFIs devote considerably more persondays This calculation also only looks at time spent on report preparation It excludes any time spent collecting, aggregating or scrubbing data before the process of report preparation begins While allocating something more than 57 person days to report preparation might not seem significant, especially when considering the relatively low cost of labor in developing countries, there are several reasons not to dismiss this impact Reporting requirements are independent of an institutions size, so for smaller MFIs with limited central staff this will be a disproportionately large impact Moreover, MIX data show that average salaries for microfinance staff in Africa are almost four times what they are in other regions,6 reflecting the fact that skilled labor is scarce and more expensive in Africa Because the finance staff involved in report preparation are among the more highly-paid employees of an MFI, the resources allocated to reporting have a disproportionate impact on the bottom line Finally, yields in Africa have not declined much in recent years,7 suggesting that even a small reduction in costs could translate into lower interest rates and greater access to affordable credit V. Delivery The last stage in reporting is to deliver the results to the intended recipient The survey asked respondents how they delivered reports to different stakeholders The results are shown in Figure 6 It is perhaps not surprising

that email dominates, as most reports are delivered in the form of a spreadsheet or a scanned document Moreover, email is most commonly used with funders and investors because they are least likely to be located in the same locale, or even the same country, as the MFI More surprising is the high percentage of respondents who say that they file regulatory reports in person or by mailing paper documents Most interesting of all perhaps is the recent appearance of web-based methods of submitting reports, either by completing an online form or uploading a file (usually a spreadsheet) to a web site. VI. Improving the Reporting Process Taking a step back to view the reporting process as a whole, the picture that we now have looks something like the diagram in Figure 7 Data originates with customer interactions in the field at a group meeting or a clients home for example, and then moves to the branches From there it moves to the head office by any of several different methods, shown by the different types of arrows in the diagram Once at the home office the data are collected into one or more of several repositories, which might be part of a single integrated application or might be separate applications Throughout this part of the process there is a need for constant validation and scrubbing of the data to make sure it is complete and accurate How much time and effort this validation requires is heavily dependent not on the software applications in use, but on the underlying business processes adopted by the institution Finally, once all data are aggregated and scrubbed, the process of extracting specific parts of the data can begin. As suggested by the network of curved arrows in the diagram, each final report requires an individual subset of data from each of the host repositories formatted into a unique template to complete the final report required by an individual stakeholder Then, when each report is finalized, it is delivered to the intended recipient.

6 7

See: http://www.mixmarket.org/data-center/reports/xUzfouRF See: http://www.mixmarket.org/data-center/reports/SnX775Ai

MicroBanking Bulletin

August 2011

Page 10

Figure 7: Reporting Process

Branch

Portfolio Management

Report

Regulator

Report Branch Finance/ Accounting Branch Report Branch Report

Investor

Network

Funder

HR

Report

Investor

In considering ways that reporting might be improved, its helpful to consider each stage of the process in turn As noted above, eliminating the use of paper forms to collect data from customers through the use of mobile phones or some other type of electronic device at the point of customer interaction can save time and increase loan officer efficiency. The required applications would not be difficult to create, but the cost of the devices must come down significantly for this to be practical for most MFIs Moving data from branches to the home office is influenced by connectivity and the type and cost of software in use at the branches While conventional broadband internet will doubtless be slow to reach many smaller towns or rural communities, improvements in the data capacity of mobile phone networks are already having an impact Applications that do not require excessive bandwidth can function over these networks, allowing faster transmission of data to home offices. One key factor, however, is the business model of software providers, most of whom currently charge a separate license fee for each computer on which their software is installed This often limits access to software at branches because of cost Moreover, when software is installed locally by individual institutions, the costs associated with maintenance, upgrades, and so forth are often quite high The emergence of so-called Software as a Service (SaaS) has the potential to change this With SaaS, customers pay for the use of an application hosted remotely and accessed via the internet through a web browser Normally, charges are based on the number of clients an MFI has rather than the number of computers, so smaller MFIs can avoid having to pay significant license fees for branches that have few customers Moreover, because applications are running centrally under the control of the service provider, costs associated with maintenance and upgrades are significantly

less SaaS offerings are already beginning to appear in the microfinance market and though the business model is not yet proven, there is reason to believe that some providers will ultimately be successful delivering software services in this way As the microfinance industry matures, we can expect to see consolidation among software vendors providing specialized applications for managing loan and savings portfolios A broader base of customers will allow vendors to lower costs, as will the adoption of SaaS delivery models Together, these changes will bring better information systems to MFIs, enabling them to collect, manage and use information much more effectively and efficiently. It will also hopefully impact reporting by increasing reliance on automated reporting from information systems, thereby reducing the need for manual transfers or scrubbing of data However, all of this leaves the single largest component of report preparation untouched As long as MFIs are required to prepare large numbers of reports according to varying requirements, it will still be necessary to allocate significant resources to extract data from multiple sources, summarize it in different ways and format it into the various templates In as much as most of these reports contain the same basic raw data on finances and operations, it seems needlessly inefficient not to have greater standardization There are two complementary approaches to this problem First, recipients could agree to accept standardized reports, thus reducing the number of different report formats which MFIs would have to provide This might appear as in Figure 8 Alternatively, as suggested by Figure 9, report data could pass through an intermediate stage before being

MicroBanking Bulletin

August 2011

Page 11

Figure 8: Effect of Standardized Reports

Branch

Portfolio Management

Report

Regulator

Network Branch Finance/ Accounting Branch Investor Branch Report Network

HR

Report

Investor

Figure 9: Effect of Data Redistribution

Branch

Portfolio Management

Regulator

Investor Branch Finance/ Accounting Branch Funder Branch Report Redistribution Network

HR

Investor

redistributed In this scenario, data would be selectively repackaged and reformatted to meet the specific needs of individual stakeholders before being passed on to them To standardize reports, at least some stakeholders must be willing to agree that the information they need is not altogether different from the information that other stakeholders need If a stakeholder believes that the information they request gives them a unique competitive advantage in evaluating the performance of MFIs, this can prove difficult. For regulators or networks this may not be as great a concern Among investors seeking the best opportunities, who account for a very substantial share of all reports prepared, it may be more difficult to achieve consensus on a standard report format The second approach, illustrated in Figure 9, requires several components to be successful

1. A comprehensive data set sufficient to meet a large number of stakeholder needs must be specified. 2 MFIs must be persuaded to collect and provide this data 3 The technical capability to extract and format the data received from MFIs to the exact specifications of the intended recipients must exist 4 Recipients must trust the redistribution process to be transparent, forwarding on data that has not been altered Specifying the comprehensive data set required to meet multiple stakeholder requirements could be accomplished by reviewing multiple report formats MFIs would have a strong incentive to provide comprehensive data if they were

MicroBanking Bulletin

August 2011

Page 12

then relieved of the burden of preparing and submitting multiple reports The technical challenge of automating the formatting of reports to meet stakeholder requirements is not complicated, but in as much as it would need to be done repeatedly for many different stakeholders, it could require significant effort. Finally, gaining the trust of stakeholders would be heavily dependent on the demonstration of consistent transparency and reliability, something that can, unfortunately, only be achieved over time Conclusion The need to collect data and report results is and will remain a critical part of any microfinance operation. As both the industry and individual institutions mature, business opportunities will emerge to improve information management and the market will attract entrepreneurs and new solutions will appear Evidence of this can

already be seen in the emergence of mobile phone based applications, specialized software packages for managing microfinance portfolios and the recent appearance of SaaS business models for delivering enterprise software These developments, combined with improvements in internal business processes, can and will improve information collection and management over time Market forces alone will not, however, necessarily have much direct effect on the reporting burden Those who impose report requirements regulators, networks, and investors - have little incentive to act individually to alter their requirements in the interest of the reporting institutions Yet, standardized report formats or a redistribution model would change the dynamics and cost structure of reporting for MFIs, which could benefit both the clients of microfinance institutions and external stakeholders Industry coordination among those committed to promoting access to financial services for the poor could build such a program to streamline reporting in this fashion

MicroBanking Bulletin

August 2011

Page 13