Keep organisation data accurate: a quarterly profile-refresh routine

A directory is only useful when people can trust its basic fields. This quarterly routine gives programme teams a small, repeatable way to check ownership, focus, geography, links and contact routes, record changes, and invite organisations to correct their own profiles.

### Use this when Use this when a directory has stale programme dates, changed staff, broken links, duplicate records or unclear ownership. It is also useful before publishing a partner map, opening applications, launching a referral campaign, or convening a cross-border event. Treat the routine as data hygiene, not a one-off clean-up. The Urban Institute notes that ecosystems are dynamic networks and that mapping includes collecting data, understanding how organisations contribute, and using the map to strengthen relationships. [1] A quarterly cycle is a practical operating choice: frequent enough to catch material change, light enough for a small team to sustain. It is not a claim that every record will be current at every moment. ### The outcome You have a dated change log, a list of records reviewed, a queue for unresolved questions, and a clear distinction between organisation-supplied information and team-checked information. People viewing the directory can tell what an organisation does, where it works, how to contact it, and when the profile was last reviewed. ### Before you start **Inputs:** the current directory export, profile fields, ownership information, public organisation websites, previous change log, and a standard review message. Define which fields are essential: organisation name, type, description, geography, sector, website, programme status, public contact route and last reviewed date. **People:** one data owner, one reviewer, and profile owners or representatives where available. For a larger directory, divide records by geography or category and give each batch one owner. **Time:** a 90-minute set-up, then a recurring quarterly block. Review high-use or high-change records first. Do not promise a refresh cadence you cannot resource. ### Step by step 1. **Freeze the field list.** Write down what each field means and what evidence is acceptable. “Works internationally” needs a defined interpretation, such as a published international programme or named location, not a guess based on a logo wall. Mark optional fields so missing optional information does not look like an error. 2. **Create the review queue.** Sort records into high, medium and low review priority. High priority includes profiles linked from current programme materials, recently contacted partners, organisations with dates or people that commonly change, and records with reported errors. Keep the queue and its reason. 3. **Check for duplicates and broken basics.** Search the organisation name, website and city. Consolidate duplicate records according to the platform’s ownership rules. Open each website and key programme link. Record “not found” rather than replacing a dead link with an unverified alternative. 4. **Compare profile to public evidence.** Check name, description, locations, current programme status, sectors and contact route. Capture the URL and date. Do not copy marketing language as a verified fact. If the public page contradicts the profile, flag it for confirmation. 5. **Invite a profile owner to review.** Send a short message with the current fields, the exact questions, a correction deadline and a clear statement that silence will not be treated as confirmation. Offer a simple reply format. If a profile is unclaimed, label it as such rather than implying endorsement. 6. **Apply changes with an audit trail.** Record old value, new value, source, date, reviewer and reason. Keep factual corrections separate from editorial improvements. If a change is disputed, retain the question and mark the field “awaiting confirmation”. 7. **Run a consistency pass.** Look for one organisation listed under different types, countries or names. Standardise spelling and country labels. Check that every organisation has one primary category and that descriptions answer the same basic questions. Avoid forcing a complex organisation into a false single label; use a note or secondary category. 8. **Publish a refresh note internally.** Summarise records checked, changes made, unresolved questions and next review date. Share only what colleagues need. Escalate privacy or removal requests through the platform’s documented process. 9. **Measure the routine, then adjust it.** Track records reviewed, corrections received, unresolved records, duplicate removals and broken links found. These are process signals, not a claim that the data is perfect. After two cycles, change the priority rules if they do not focus effort where users need it. ### Templates **Profile-refresh request** ```text Subject: Please check your LINKK organisation profile Hello [name/team], We are running our quarterly profile check. Could you confirm or amend the fields below by [date]? Organisation: Website: Primary location(s): What you currently offer or support: Current programme status: Public contact route: Preferred profile owner: Please reply with “confirmed” or list the exact corrections. We will record the review date and will not treat a non-response as confirmation. Thank you, [team] ``` **Change-log columns:** Record ID | field | previous value | new value | evidence URL | supplied by | checked by | date | status | follow-up. ### Common mistakes Do not silently overwrite organisation-supplied information. Do not make a profile “sound better” by adding unsupported claims. Do not use a single annual clean-up as a substitute for ownership. Do not treat an unclaimed listing as verified. Do not publish personal contact details without a clear public basis and a legitimate operational need. ### How to tell it worked The team knows who owns the next review. Users can see when a profile was last checked. Broken links and duplicates decline across cycles. Organisations can correct their own information through a predictable route. Staff use the directory without repeatedly asking whether basic fields are still true. ### Using LINKK for this Use LINKK’s organisation profiles and claim flow to establish a clear profile owner. The directory’s claimed and verified states can help you separate self-maintained information from a listing that still needs confirmation. Follow organisations whose updates matter to your programme, and use a Network feed Question when you need a public correction or context from the wider ecosystem. ### Sources [1]: https://www.urban.org/research/publication/guide-civic-tech-and-data-ecosystem-mapping "Urban Institute Guide to Civic Tech and Data Ecosystem Mapping" ---