Institutional Review Processes

How I Review Contracts (Without Wasting Hours) Most people read contracts line by line from the start. I don’t. That’s the slowest way to catch red flags. Instead, I reverse-engineer them to spot risks first. Step 1: Get the Big Picture – What’s this contract actually about? Who has more power in the deal? This tells me what to watch out for. Step 2: Find the Risks – I jump straight to liability and termination clauses. Can my client walk away if things go south? Are they taking on unfair risks? Step 3: Follow the Money – I check payment terms, penalties, and refunds to make sure there are no vague or sneaky conditions. Step 4: Watch for Dispute Traps – Jurisdiction and arbitration clauses can quietly make legal battles expensive or one-sided. I flag them early. Step 5: Dig Into the Fine Print – Standard clauses like indemnification, non-compete, and amendments often hold surprises. I don’t skim them. Step 6: Read Line by Line – Only after flagging key issues do I read everything carefully, making sure nothing slips through. This method saves time, catches hidden risks faster, and makes contract review way more efficient. Want me to break down a contract using this? Let’s talk.

"This working paper will argue that standardization is the ideal route for establishing robust and adaptive AI governance for the research sector internationally. This is mainly because of the ability for standardization to engage multiple stakeholders with different interests while ensuring accountability and robust requirements through conformity assessment and certification within a standard. The first section of the paper will begin with an evaluation of the primary global risks posed by AI use within research institutions. The second section will discuss how these global risks require global governance structures and what that might look like in the research context. The third section will address some of the primary concerns or critiques of standardization as a method of governance and potential paths to ensure those shortcomings will not affect efficacy and robustness of an international standard for AI use in research. The fourth section will review the existing landscape of international standards for AI, the process of international standard development through the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and other key institutions and organizations that might play a role in an ISO standard for AI in research. The fifth section will detail the essential elements of any ISO standard for AI in research. The final section will provide conclusions and recommendations for institutions to develop the CAN/DGSI 128 standard into an international standard." Great work from Matthew da Mota, Ph.D. at the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) #AI #AIgovernance 

3 Workflows I've Automated for in-house teams. ① Ask Legal ② Procurement ③ Contract Review (not just the review!) 1. Ask Legal [or any department for that matter 🤷🏼♀️] You've heard me talk about legal teams and knowledge management. Long story short, your legal team is answering the same 20 questions over and over 😵💫 A simple way to save a CHUNK of time answering questions from the business (enabling them to go faster) ALL while having complete control & keeping a human in the loop? ↪️ Set up an 'Ask Legal' bot in your comms platform. ↪️ Sync it with your knowledge base (e.g GDrive/Notion/Sharepoint). ↪️ Set up your custom instructions (Want it to tag Bob on privacy questions only, specifically on a Tuesday? No problem).  ↪️ Don't want the answer to go straight out to the business without reviewing it first? Cool, turn on co-pilot mode. The result? 60-80% fewer repetitive queries. Your team focuses on the high value things that need a human lawyer. 2. Procurement Businesses have 100's of tools, but when departments don't speak to each other you end up with duplicate tools & subscriptions 😭 💵 🚽.  What if there was a way for the business to find out in <1 minute if there was a tool available that covered their needs, before needing to spend some hard secured department budget? Moreover, what if I told you, they could kick off the internal procurement process from the comfort of your comms platform? Team member : “Do we already have a tool for X?” in Slack/Teams ✅ Bot checks knowledge base (policies, procurement tool). ✅ If a match is found, it shares the approved tool & owner to contact. ✅ If not, the bot can ask the user for more info and direct them with next steps to kick off the procurement process from inside Slack/Teams. Ensuring your users ACTUALLY follow the process, without adding friction. Did I just see your CFO cry tears of joy? 3. Third Party Vendor Contract Review & Project Management Getting AI to redline a contract (as a first pass) is a huge win, but there's still the other pieces of the process missing, like: 🤷🏼♀️ The business figuring out IF legal review is even needed (according to company policy). 📨 The business actually submitting the contract to legal. 😩 Managing review capacity within the legal team. 🖥️ Getting the legal team to log & update the PM tool. The list never ends. Legal reviews only what actually needs their eyes, turnaround times improve, and the business stops pinging the team for “update pls?” in Slack : ) TLDR; Most legal teams are drowning in admin work that could be automated. I've built all of these using simple processes and tools (that I've found most businesses have). You also know I love a good Figma flow. So I’ve built them for all three of the above (see a sneak peak below). Want the entire thing? Comment "FLOWS" and I'll send them over. Also, tell me what you want to see - more of the above or step-by-step how-to build videos?

Impact evaluation is a crucial tool for understanding the effectiveness of development programs, offering insights into how interventions influence their intended beneficiaries. The Handbook on Impact Evaluation: Quantitative Methods and Practices, authored by Shahidur R. Khandker, Gayatri B. Koolwal, and Hussain A. Samad, presents a comprehensive approach to designing and conducting rigorous evaluations in complex environments. With its emphasis on quantitative methods, this guide serves as a vital resource for policymakers, researchers, and practitioners striving to assess and enhance the impact of programs aimed at reducing poverty and fostering development. The handbook delves into a variety of techniques, including randomized controlled trials, propensity score matching, double-difference methods, and regression discontinuity designs, each tailored to address specific evaluation challenges. It bridges theory and practice, offering case studies and practical examples from global programs, such as conditional cash transfers in Mexico and rural electrification in Nepal. By integrating both ex-ante and ex-post evaluation methods, it equips evaluators to not only measure program outcomes but also anticipate potential impacts in diverse settings. This resource transcends technical guidance, emphasizing the strategic value of impact evaluation in informing evidence-based policy decisions and improving resource allocation. Whether for evaluating microcredit programs, infrastructure projects, or social initiatives, the methodologies outlined provide a robust framework for generating actionable insights that can drive sustainable and equitable development worldwide.

You can’t have a good program without good evaluation ‼️ Over the last decade, I have designed and run a lot of programs. The most difficult and important part has always been the evaluation process I’ve learned to be wary of “perfect” feedback. When participants tell me a program was flawless and doesn’t need to change, it usually means I didn’t ask the right questions, or I didn’t create the conditions for honest reflection. It’s good for the ego and for reporting back to funders/external stakeholders, but it’s not useful for growth. Evaluation should surface what didn’t land, what could be clearer, and what needs to be rethought. It requires designing questions that go beyond “Did you enjoy this?” and instead get closer to answering “What actually changed for you?” or “What didn’t work in the way you expected?” When time and resources allow, a mixed approach tends to be the most meaningful. Surveys, short written reflections or even simple sticky note responses can capture immediate, unfiltered reactions. However, it’s often in post-program interviews where the depth really emerges. That’s where people articulate the nuances, the contradictions, and the things they wouldn’t write down. The goal isn’t just to prove that a program worked. It’s to understand how the next iteration can be meaningfully better.

Are your programs making the impact you envision or are they costing more than they give back? A few years ago, I worked with an organization grappling with a tough question: Which programs should we keep, grow, or let go? They felt stretched thin, with some initiatives thriving and others barely holding on. It was clear they needed a clearer strategy to align their programs with their long-term goals. We introduced a tool that breaks programs into four categories: Heart, Star, Stop Sign, and Money Tree each with its strategic path. -Heart: These programs deliver immense value but come with high costs. The team asked, Can we achieve the same impact with a leaner approach? They restructured staffing and reduced overhead, preserving the program's impact while cutting costs by 15%. -Star: High impact and high revenue programs that beg for investment. The team explored expanding partnerships for a standout program and saw a 30% increase in revenue within two years. -Stop Sign: Programs that drain resources without delivering results. One initiative had consistently low engagement. They gave it a six-month review period but ultimately decided to phase it out, freeing resources for more promising efforts. -Money Tree: The revenue generating champions. Here, the focus was on growth investing in marketing and improving operations to double their margin within a year. This structured approach led to more confident decision-making and, most importantly, brought them closer to their goal of sustainable success. According to a report by Bain & Company, organizations that regularly assess program performance against strategic priorities see a 40% increase in efficiency and long-term viability. Yet, many teams shy away from the hard conversations this requires. The lesson? Every program doesn’t need to stay. Evaluating them through a thoughtful lens of impact and profitability ensures you’re investing where it matters most. What’s a program in your organization that could benefit from this kind of review?

The legal technology landscape has never been more promising, yet I continue to observe fundamental disconnects between our tools and our workflows. After years of working at the intersection of law and technology, I've identified six critical gaps that deserve our collective attention as opportunities for meaningful improvement: 1. The Workflow Integration Challenge We invest in sophisticated AI-powered contract review platforms while basic document intake remains fragmented. The most advanced technology loses its impact when the foundation isn't solid. Success requires us to examine and optimize entire workflows, not just individual tools. 2. Demonstrating Value Beyond Intuition "It feels more efficient" doesn't satisfy stakeholders who need concrete metrics. We must develop better frameworks for measuring and communicating the value of legal technology investments. This means tracking not just time saved, but quality improvements, risk reduction, and business enablement. 3. Resource Allocation Reality Legal departments face increasing demands with static resources. The solution isn't always more headcount or bigger budgets—it's reimagining how work flows through our departments. Strategic automation and process optimization can multiply our impact without multiplying costs. 4. Empowering Business Partners The most effective legal departments enable self-service for routine matters. When business partners can confidently handle standard NDAs or basic contract questions independently, legal professionals can focus on higher-value strategic work. This shift requires intentional design and change management, but the payoff is substantial. 5. Measuring What Truly Matters While cost per contract provides one data point, we need metrics that capture our true business impact. Are we accelerating deal velocity? Reducing friction in the sales process? Enabling better business decisions? These outcomes matter more than pure efficiency metrics. 6. Meeting Users Where They Work The best legal technology integrates seamlessly into existing workflows. Rather than creating another portal or login, we should focus on bringing legal intelligence into the tools our colleagues already use daily. Invisible technology often provides the most visible results. Each of these challenges represents an opportunity to strengthen the connection between legal and business teams while leveraging technology more effectively. The path forward requires honest assessment, collaborative problem-solving, and a willingness to challenge traditional approaches. We have the tools and knowledge. We now we need to align them with how people actually work. Let's continue building a legal tech community that transforms these disconnects into opportunities for innovation and growth. #legaltech #innovation #law #business #learning

In the last 10 years I've designed, delivered and assessed the impact of several large scale leadership development programmes. Want to know how I make sure they actually matter and aren't just a pretty certificate or a report of butts on seats? It's my 6 power questions. Start asking these and you're guaranteed to have leadership programmes that create long lasting behaviour change AND reportable outcomes. 1) What are the core leadership capabilities and behaviours we need both now and in the future? This is where you survey leaders at all levels to identify essential skills. If you're not talking to your audience then you're missing a HUGE piece of the puzzle. And for the love of god please incorporate strategy here too. What does the business need to achieve and what role does leadership play? 2) How will you assess current leadership competencies and development needs across the organisation? Are you using 360 reviews, skills assessments, interviews? 3) What development formats will allow for skills practice, real-world application and feedback? This could include workshops, cohorts, mentoring, job rotations, special project assignments... something that let's them practice is essential. 4) How will leadership development intersect with your talent management processes? The amount of times this isn't considered is staggering. Look at integration points with recruitment, promotion, succession planning and performance management. This is crucial. 5) What measures will define the success of this programme at the participant, leadership bench strength, and organisational level? Identify key leading and lagging indicators. Wanna know what these are? 💡 Leading = participation rates, completions of tasks, engagement surveys, tests etc. 💡 Lagging = leadership pipeline for critical roles, if your programmes affect things like EVP and brand, leadership retention, and your key metrics around profitability etc. Great programmes measure both ⬆️ 6) How will you evolve curriculums over time to meet changing business objectives and leadership needs? Build in processes for continuous review and refresh. This is my biggest non-negotiable. At a push you should review every 3 years but I suggest a review every year in line with strategy and business objectives + engagement surveys and employee data. Leadership development is a serious game friends. It's not just away days and leadership theory. This is how you future proof your organisation, and goes from grass roots through to established leadership. Anything I've missed that you would add?👇

The wait is over! ISO 21001:2025 is here-  Management Systems for Educational Organizations – Requirements with Guidance for Use Published in July 2025, this revision is a major step forward in shaping quality education worldwide. As #ProjectLeader, I’m honored to have contributed to this important work. Grateful to ISO - International Organization for Standardization for the guidance and to the Bureau of Indian Standards for their trust and support. What’s new in ISO 21001:2025? 1️⃣ Expanded vocabulary – Includes updated terms like evaluation, formative and summative assessment, and learner with special needs. 2️⃣ Sustainability integration – Climate change considerations embedded in the organizational context. 3️⃣ Clearer framework – Stronger distinction between learning delivery, assessment methods, and evaluation criteria. 4️⃣ Broader stakeholder classification – As detailed in Annex C. 5️⃣ Process mapping – Core education management processes mapped to requirements (Annex E). 6️⃣ Enhanced alignment with other standards– Updated examples of alignment with European standards, especially EQAVET (Annex F). 7️⃣ Digital/hybrid learning recognition - Enhanced guidance for virtual delivery, quality assurance, and data protection. What this means for education? ✅ More inclusive and equitable learning experiences ✅ Stronger sustainability and institutional resilience ✅ Robust digital and hybrid learning models ✅ Better data protection in an AI-enabled education ecosystem A heartfelt thank you to all the members of our dedicated working group WG7, our ISO TC 232 Technical Programme Manager Sally Swingewood, Chair Bill Rivers, and Committee Manager Fei HOU. I’m truly proud of what we’ve achieved together. Looking ahead: Let’s leverage ISO 21001:2025 to inspire learner-centered, future-ready education systems across the globe. #ISO21001 #EducationStandards #QualityEducation #SustainabilityInEducation #AIInEducation #isostandards

I recently experienced a manuscript rejection from a Q1 journal on the grounds that my study did not have formal Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. While I fully respect the importance of ethical compliance in research, this situation raises an important question for researchers working in contexts like Pakistan: Do our institutions consistently have formal IRB systems in place that align with international publishing requirements? In my case, ethical considerations were carefully addressed. Participants provided informed consent, and all necessary permissions were obtained from relevant authorities. However, the absence of a formally recognized IRB structure became a decisive factor in the rejection. This highlights a broader structural gap between Global North publishing standards and research realities in many developing contexts. I believe this is an important conversation for academics, institutions, and policymakers in Pakistan and similar settings: How can we strengthen institutional ethical review mechanisms? How can journals better recognize contextual differences without compromising ethical rigor? What steps should researchers take when formal IRBs are unavailable? Despite the disappointment, this experience has been a learning opportunity. I remain committed to improving research practices and contributing to ongoing discussions around ethical standardization in global academia. I would value insights from fellow researchers who have faced similar challenges.