It might seem like an obvious next step for a growing waste management organisation to digitise its record-keeping — a mobile app for collectors, a digital ledger for buy-back weighing, automated reporting. We've considered this more than once, and have deliberately kept much of our day-to-day tracking on paper for reasons that are practical rather than nostalgic.
What our current paper system actually looks like
Each collector carries a simple paper log recording households served, waste streams collected, and any notable issues — a household that wasn't ready, a segregation problem worth flagging. Buy-back points keep a similar paper ledger recording each seller's weight and payment, which is later consolidated into our overall records. It's not a sophisticated system, but it's a functioning one that every member of our team, regardless of technical comfort, can use reliably from day one.
Why we haven't digitised this, at least not yet
A digital system requires devices, reliable charging, and connectivity that isn't uniformly available across every point in our service area — a buy-back point in Githurai or a collection route through denser housing doesn't necessarily have the same infrastructure reliability as an office setting. Paper doesn't fail when a phone battery dies or a signal drops, which matters considerably when the underlying record is what determines fair payment to a seller standing in front of you.
The training and cost consideration
Every new tool we introduce needs to be learnable quickly by collectors and buy-back staff with widely varying levels of comfort with digital devices, without adding a barrier to the apprenticeship and onboarding process we've built for new hires. Paper logging requires essentially no training beyond basic literacy, which has let us focus our apprenticeship period on the substantive collection and segregation skills that actually determine service quality, rather than spending that time on device operation.
What paper logging has meant for transparency specifically
Somewhat counterintuitively, paper logs have supported rather than hindered our transparency commitments. Physical logs, kept and periodically reviewed as part of our reporting obligations as a registered CBO, create a straightforward, tamper-evident record that residents and, where relevant, county officials can review directly without needing technical access to a digital system. Our annual reflection on the numbers behind our work draws directly on these consolidated paper records.
Where we do use some lightweight digital tools
This isn't a blanket rejection of technology — we use basic digital tools where they clearly add value without the reliability trade-offs of field-level tracking. Our published buy-back rates and collection schedules are maintained digitally for easy updating and communication, and internal consolidation of paper log data into simple digital summaries happens at our main yard, where reliable power and connectivity exist, rather than in the field where they don't.
What would change our approach
If connectivity and device access across our full service area became more consistently reliable, and if a digital system could be introduced without adding meaningful training burden or failure risk at the point of collection, we'd reconsider. For now, the practical case for paper at the field level remains stronger than the theoretical appeal of digitisation, and we'd rather have a system that works reliably every single day than a more sophisticated one that occasionally fails at the worst possible moment.
What this means for how we report to residents and partners
Our commitment to transparent reporting, discussed in more detail in our reflection on a year of registration, doesn't depend on the underlying record-keeping method being digital. What matters is that records are kept consistently, reviewed honestly, and made available to anyone with a legitimate reason to ask — a standard paper logs meet just as well as a more sophisticated system would, at considerably lower cost and complexity for our current scale.
What residents have said about this approach when asked directly
When we've explained our paper-based system to residents curious about it, the most common reaction has been mild surprise followed by acceptance once the reliability reasoning is explained — most residents care considerably more about whether their collection happens consistently and their buy-back payment is accurate than about whether the underlying record-keeping method is digital or not.
Frequently asked questions
Do you plan to digitise your collection and buy-back records eventually?
Possibly, if connectivity and device reliability across our full service area improve, though we're not pursuing this purely for its own sake without a clear practical benefit over our current system.
How can I see records related to my own household's collection or buy-back activity?
Contact us directly; while our field records are on paper, we can retrieve and share relevant information on request.
Does using paper logs affect payment accuracy at buy-back points?
No, weighing and payment happen on the spot in front of the seller regardless of how the record is subsequently logged, so accuracy isn't affected by the recording method.
See our broader transparency commitments in our piece on one year since CBO registration.