MSP | Collaboration Tools
Local humanitarian NGO networks in the Global South can significantly strengthen collaboration, internal communications, knowledge sharing, and team cohesion by adopting affordable and accessible digital collaboration tools that function well in low-connectivity environments and across a wide range of devices. Basic messaging platforms such as WhatsApp, Telegram, and Signal remain among the most effective options because they work on older smartphones, require minimal bandwidth, function offline for queued messages, support voice notes, and enable group chats in multiple languages, making them particularly useful for field-based teams and multilingual networks. For more structured collaboration, platforms like Microsoft Teams, Google Workspace Chat, Slack, and Meta Workplace offer shared channels, document storage, task tracking, and video conferencing—allowing NGOs to move beyond ad-hoc conversations to organised teamwork and institutional memory building.
However, these tools may require steadier connectivity and some orientation for less tech-savvy users. More community-oriented solutions such as Discord can support thematic working groups, learning communities, and youth-led humanitarian networks, while Basecamp or Trello provide simple project management features accessible via mobile devices. For organisational coordination and network strengthening, specialised platforms such as PartnerCRM, Ariadne Network Mapping tools, or Open Referral-style coordination platforms can help track relationships, partners, shared activities, and collective advocacy efforts without relying on email-based identity systems.
The advantages of these tools include multilingual interfaces, reduced dependency on formal email infrastructure, adaptability to different levels of digital literacy, and a capacity to centralise knowledge even when staff turnover is high. Their limitations often include data security concerns, sustainability if premium features are required, and the risk of information overload if poorly governed. Overall, the most effective approach for NGO networks is usually a hybrid system: simple mobile messaging tools for daily communication, a lightweight collaboration platform for structured work and documentation, and a network mapping or CRM-type system to capture institutional knowledge and partner coordination—helping networks stay connected, coordinated, and resilient despite resource and connectivity constraints.
PROS and CONS
Pros: Collaboration software can create constantly available shared spaces where network members can interact. Most solutions are either free, already included in pre-existing software licenses, or offered at low cost. They are often available in a variety of languages and are compatible with different types of devices and connectivity levels.
Cons: As with all digital solutions, some minimal level of connectivity and digital literacy is required. Moving ahead with a digital solution that is not universally accessible across the network could lead to inequities and engagement gaps within the membership. Some solutions are more secure than others in terms of privacy and data security.
SELECTION CONSIDERATIONS
Functionality: Can the software effectively carry out all the tasks that it is meant to take over? Can it produce outputs that are compatible with the adopter’s internal requirements and donor/partner expectations? Does it offer additional functionalities that will enhance operational effectiveness?
Operating and access requirements: Are the requirements of the system in line with the reality of the adopter’s context? Does running the software require constant high-bandwidth connectivity or a dedicated server? Can users across the network access the system through their existing devices and connections?
Cost structure: What kind of payment model does the software require (if any)? How many individual licenses does the adopter need? How will costs increase if more users are added?
Customisation needed: How much effort will it take to make the software operational in the adopter’s context (i.e. is there a version already adapted to the national context)? Who can make these changes and at what cost?
EXAMPLES
Many NGO networks rely on widely accessible communication tools to facilitate coordination and information sharing across their members. For example, platforms such as WhatsApp are commonly used to enable rapid communication, particularly in contexts where more formal or resource-intensive systems may not be feasible.
Providers of collaboration software often manage Corporate Social Responsibility programmes through which they support the uptake of their software by local actors. For instance, in South Sudan, the Monday.com Emergency Response Team has partnered with the RISE South Sudan consortium to help them install and use their digital solutions.
Developing a digital map of the network (especially for large groupings of 50+ organisations) can help visualise the membership and easily access information on individual members. Recently, CartONG developed the KOLData application for DRC network CONAFOHD.