What organisations say after working with us

Challenge

The executive director was spending three evenings per week drafting grant interim reports and donor thank-you letters. With only two paid staff, this left little time for programme oversight. Two volunteers helped occasionally, but their drafts were inconsistent in tone and required extensive editing.

What we did

After the Listening Visit, we identified grant interim reports and donor acknowledgements as suitable for AI drafting. Volunteer briefing notes were excluded. The pilot built templates for both document types, included bilingual training, and established a simple review habit — each AI draft was read by one staff member before sending.

Result

By the end of the pilot, grant reports were being completed within the same working day rather than across multiple evenings. Donor acknowledgements were sent within 48 hours consistently. The executive director reported a meaningful reduction in evening work hours related to correspondence.

"The templates are ours now. We don't need anyone present to use them." — Executive Director

Challenge

This organisation had already adopted an AI writing tool independently, but their board had concerns about whether donor data was being handled within PDPA bounds. Their grant funders included two Yayasan bodies with distinct report formats, and the AI outputs were not consistently meeting those format requirements.

What we did

We began with a one-day audit of their existing AI use, then moved into Quarterly Stewardship. Each quarter we review a sample of AI-assisted documents, audit data flows against PDPA, update templates when Yayasan format requirements change, and write a board brief. The first annual AGM summary was delivered in March 2025.

Result

The board now has a consistent record of how AI is used, what it does and does not touch, and how data is handled. Grant report formats are updated each quarter based on funder feedback. The AGM summary gave trustees a clear basis to discuss AI governance for the first time.

"Our board brief from last quarter was two pages. Trustees read it. That has not happened with reports in years." — Secretary

Challenge

A small volunteer society interested in AI but uncertain whether it was appropriate for their situation. They had heard from peer organisations that AI tools could help with reports, but most resources they found were in English and assumed tools they did not use.

What we did

The Listening Visit was conducted primarily in Bahasa Malaysia. We observed their monthly operations and reviewed their reporting cycle. The brief was delivered in both languages. Our finding was that one specific document type — monthly progress notes to their primary funder — was a good fit for AI drafting, but their other correspondence was not at sufficient volume to make a pilot worthwhile at that time.

Result

The organisation decided not to proceed to a pilot immediately, which was the right decision for their scale. We provided a simple prompt template for the one document type identified. They have the brief on file and plan to revisit a pilot when their reporting volume increases. The Listening Visit gave them a clear, jargon-free picture of their options.

"They told us the honest answer, which was that we were not ready for a full pilot yet. That was actually helpful." — Chairperson