Design a NGO

A digital platform to coordinate and support humanitarian aid for NGOs.

Ergosign — Solution Manager Service Design — Berlin — 2021-22

LOCAL SITUATION

Placeholder — add local project context, environment, or situation specific to this engagement here.

CONTEXT

This project started as a pro bono engagement at Ergosign. Frontline Aid (FAID) was already active and delivering impact through local changemakers in crisis regions. What was missing was not motivation or vision, but a structure that could support growth without increasing risk, bureaucracy, or personal overload for the founder. FAID operated in a space where realities collide: humanitarian urgency, donor accountability, volunteer coordination, and legal responsibility. The existing setup relied heavily on personal effort and informal coordination, which worked at small scale but became fragile as interest and demand increased.

MANDATE & TRUST

I led the project and authored the service strategy that would shape FAID’s next phase. The mandate was not to design a platform first, but to help translate a deeply personal mission into a system that could grow responsibly. Trust was central. The founder shared operational, legal, and ethical constraints openly. This allowed us to work on the real structure of the organization rather than cosmetic solutions.

MY ROLE & TEAM

I was responsible for framing the problem, defining the service strategy, and leading the design work end to end. Colleagues supported research activities, interviews, and synthesis, but ownership of the system design and strategic direction remained with me. My role sat at the intersection of service design, organizational design, and strategy — defining not just interfaces, but roles, responsibilities, and decision-making structures.

THE REAL PROBLEM

The core issue was not lack of goodwill. It was misaligned systems. Changemakers worked in unstable environments with limited infrastructure and real safety risks. Reporting, documentation, and communication — trivial in stable contexts — were significant burdens. At the same time, donors and institutions required transparency, accountability, and proof of impact. Volunteers wanted to help, but lacked clear structure. These needs were not incompatible. The system connecting them was.

DESIGN DECISIONS

Instead of designing features, the work focused on designing structure. We defined clear roles and flows: changemakers stay focused on their work, volunteers contribute in ways that match their skills and availability, and decision-making becomes explicit rather than implicit. Democratic discussion is encouraged, but accountability and final responsibility remain clearly defined. One of the central artifacts was a comprehensive service blueprint mapping activities across all roles — from onboarding to reporting, coordination, escalation, and decision-making. Laid out physically, it filled roughly twice the length of FAID’s office wall. The scale mattered. It made complexity visible, shared, and manageable.

OPERATING MODEL

Research combined document analysis, stakeholder interviews, and synthesis workshops. Conversations with people close to crisis locations were particularly important. These were not abstract “users,” but individuals navigating political pressure, unreliable connectivity, language barriers, and safety concerns. Reporting was reframed as a shared service rather than a repetitive obligation. Changemakers provide input in formats that fit their reality — short texts, voice, images. Volunteers help translate this input into reports that meet donor expectations. Information is reused instead of recreated. Digital tools played a supporting role, not a leading one. Wherever possible, simple and open solutions were favored over complex custom systems.

OUTCOMES & SIGNALS

The resulting strategy gave FAID a clear, realistic growth path. The founder gained strategic oversight instead of constant firefighting. Changemakers were relieved from unnecessary bureaucracy. Volunteers could contribute meaningfully within clear boundaries. Donors received transparency without pushing risk onto those operating in fragile contexts. The organization gained a system that could scale without losing trust or humanity.

REFLECTION

This project sits at the intersection of service design, strategy, and organizational design. It showed how structure can create value across very different realities — not by simplifying them away, but by making responsibilities explicit and reducing friction where it matters most. Digital did not dominate the solution. It enabled it.

Context

This project started as a pro bono engagement at Ergosign. Frontline Aid (FAID) was already active and delivering impact through local changemakers in crisis regions. What was missing was not motivation or vision, but a structure that could support growth without increasing risk, bureaucracy, or personal overload for the founder. FAID operated in a space where realities collide: humanitarian urgency, donor accountability, volunteer coordination, and legal responsibility. The existing setup relied heavily on personal effort and informal coordination, which worked at small scale but became fragile as interest and demand increased.

Mandate & trust

I led the project and authored the service strategy that would shape FAID’s next phase. The mandate was not to design a platform first, but to help translate a deeply personal mission into a system that could grow responsibly. Trust was central. The founder shared operational, legal, and ethical constraints openly. This allowed us to work on the real structure of the organization rather than cosmetic solutions.

My role & team

I was responsible for framing the problem, defining the service strategy, and leading the design work end to end. Colleagues supported research activities, interviews, and synthesis, but ownership of the system design and strategic direction remained with me. My role sat at the intersection of service design, organizational design, and strategy — defining not just interfaces, but roles, responsibilities, and decision-making structures.

The real problem

The core issue was not lack of goodwill. It was misaligned systems. Changemakers worked in unstable environments with limited infrastructure and real safety risks. Reporting, documentation, and communication — trivial in stable contexts — were significant burdens. At the same time, donors and institutions required transparency, accountability, and proof of impact. Volunteers wanted to help, but lacked clear structure. These needs were not incompatible. The system connecting them was.

Design decisions

Instead of designing features, the work focused on designing structure. We defined clear roles and flows: changemakers stay focused on their work, volunteers contribute in ways that match their skills and availability, and decision-making becomes explicit rather than implicit. Democratic discussion is encouraged, but accountability and final responsibility remain clearly defined. One of the central artifacts was a comprehensive service blueprint mapping activities across all roles — from onboarding to reporting, coordination, escalation, and decision-making. Laid out physically, it filled roughly twice the length of FAID’s office wall. The scale mattered. It made complexity visible, shared, and manageable.

Operating model

Research combined document analysis, stakeholder interviews, and synthesis workshops. Conversations with people close to crisis locations were particularly important. These were not abstract “users,” but individuals navigating political pressure, unreliable connectivity, language barriers, and safety concerns. Reporting was reframed as a shared service rather than a repetitive obligation. Changemakers provide input in formats that fit their reality — short texts, voice, images. Volunteers help translate this input into reports that meet donor expectations. Information is reused instead of recreated. Digital tools played a supporting role, not a leading one. Wherever possible, simple and open solutions were favored over complex custom systems.

Outcomes & signals

The resulting strategy gave FAID a clear, realistic growth path. The founder gained strategic oversight instead of constant firefighting. Changemakers were relieved from unnecessary bureaucracy. Volunteers could contribute meaningfully within clear boundaries. Donors received transparency without pushing risk onto those operating in fragile contexts. The organization gained a system that could scale without losing trust or humanity.

Reflection

This project sits at the intersection of service design, strategy, and organizational design. It showed how structure can create value across very different realities — not by simplifying them away, but by making responsibilities explicit and reducing friction where it matters most. Digital did not dominate the solution. It enabled it.