The question in the title was asked by a business development manager of an NGO in Uganda to a colleague of mine in a meeting yesterday. So I tweeted it:
"You're an #engineer why can't you lay bricks?" "Because I'm not a brick layer!" The trouble with #NGO #perceptions of engineer's abilities."
....and another friend came back with the following point:
"They do have a bit of a point - how do you supervise/QA bricklaying if you don't know what to do? Ditto basic plumbing, carpentry"
This wouldn't be a question asked of an engineer in the UK. The engineers have specific roles related to design and management. The engineering company then employs skilled professionals to construct and supervise the construction. The site engineer ensures that the construction is put in place as per the designs and liaises with the foreman to ensure that the quality of construction is as expected.
So why not do this in Uganda?
The response from twitter is valid - as a civil engineer (not necessarily as any other type of engineer) you should know what good brickwork looks like and how to check it but I wouldn't say you need to be a fully qualified brick layer. Somebody, however, has to ensure that work is done properly.
Even the development community is waking up to the fact that you should only pay a contractor when they complete work to a pre-agreed standard - this is the basis of Output Based Aid. As the World Bank consultant put it to a steering group on water and sanitation in Uganda last week, "If you employ somebody to lay a pipeline and a tap stand, you shouldn't pay them until there is water running out of the tap." Seems pretty simple to me and surprising that this hasn't been the norm.
My point is that NGOs try to do too many things themselves and all at once. They should be collaborating with skilled professional companies or employing targeted skills for specific jobs and not expecting one professional within their organisation to be able to do everything vaguely related to their field. This seems, to me at least, why many projects are completed at a sub-par standard - I reckon the good people over at Admitting Failure would have more specific evidence on this. But hey, it's okay it's only for the poor people.
As Diana Jue pointed out in her exccellent article "Seven expert tips to help your invention succeed where others fail: Distribution" on Engineering for Change:
"From what I’ve seen of the availability of products in rural stores, most companies assume that because rural customers shave lower incomes, they won’t pay for nicer, higher-quality products. As a result, most products that reach rural markets are low cost and low quality......You will stand out in the marketplace if you position yourself as a high-quality brand. This means treating rural customers with the respect that all customers deserve.."
I'd argue that this goes for construction projects, products and services aimed at and involving low income people in general. If I, as an engineer, were to go about laying bricks for a latrine then we'd only be able to build as many latrines as I can manage at once. Even if I, as an engineer, employed a load of brickies to do it for me and personally supervised their work we'd only get to a limited scale because I, as the implementing individual, would be the limiting factor.
At the Sanihub project what we're aiming to do, on the other hand, is to use engineering analysis to determine the key factor in our product. In this case it's a low-volume U-bend in a pour flush system which only requires 2 litres of water to flush. We've taken direct inspiration IDE.org's EZ Latrine and are focussing on producing a standard chamber box/U-bend product that can be installed in to any latrine construction to allow people to have a water sealed toilet with an offset pit for a similar price to a standard long drop or VIP latrine. The parts have all been developed elsewhere; you can buy standard low flush P-bends in India, IDE,org developed the box in Cambodia, you can get good concrete slabs in Uganda and high quality ceramic squat pans are imported as standard. I've also been told that the low volume flushing pedestal that PiD demonstrated at the FSM2 conference in Durban is being developed with Envirosan, so will be available for import soon. Adapting the products and designing systems for them to function within is the important role of the engineer.
We'll then work with entrepreneurs to deliver the product to the market. We intend that these entrepreneurs (as construction professionals) will employ masons (brick layers) and ensure quality of construction or else they'll face a loss to their reputation and their revenue. Or they could simply sell the product with instructions and allow households to employ the mason themselves as the current system works - this 'hands-off' approach has worked well for Watershed in Cambodia. The important thing is that they'll have a high quality product at the heart of their latrine which will ensure better performance.
The other challenge that households, entrepreneurs and masons face is in the inconsistency of the building materials available on the market. There are no standards in local brick manufacturing; unless the household trusts the mason to buy quality bricks they need to do it themselves which seriously increases the transactional cost due to lost time for work and other earnings. Influencing the national brick manufacturing industry is not our role as a WatSan organisation but it would be a fascinating project! What if, however, there was a standardised construction system that would be specific to latrine construction in Uganda (and potentially the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa)? If that were available then standard, high quality and low cost products could be produced to reduce the transactional cost for households, reduce the time taken for construction, ensure a decent standard of construction and, this the ultimate aim, allow more people to build better toilets which would have a positive impact on their quality of life.
"You're an #engineer why can't you lay bricks?" "Because I'm not a brick layer!" The trouble with #NGO #perceptions of engineer's abilities."
....and another friend came back with the following point:
"They do have a bit of a point - how do you supervise/QA bricklaying if you don't know what to do? Ditto basic plumbing, carpentry"
This wouldn't be a question asked of an engineer in the UK. The engineers have specific roles related to design and management. The engineering company then employs skilled professionals to construct and supervise the construction. The site engineer ensures that the construction is put in place as per the designs and liaises with the foreman to ensure that the quality of construction is as expected.
So why not do this in Uganda?
The response from twitter is valid - as a civil engineer (not necessarily as any other type of engineer) you should know what good brickwork looks like and how to check it but I wouldn't say you need to be a fully qualified brick layer. Somebody, however, has to ensure that work is done properly.
Even the development community is waking up to the fact that you should only pay a contractor when they complete work to a pre-agreed standard - this is the basis of Output Based Aid. As the World Bank consultant put it to a steering group on water and sanitation in Uganda last week, "If you employ somebody to lay a pipeline and a tap stand, you shouldn't pay them until there is water running out of the tap." Seems pretty simple to me and surprising that this hasn't been the norm.
My point is that NGOs try to do too many things themselves and all at once. They should be collaborating with skilled professional companies or employing targeted skills for specific jobs and not expecting one professional within their organisation to be able to do everything vaguely related to their field. This seems, to me at least, why many projects are completed at a sub-par standard - I reckon the good people over at Admitting Failure would have more specific evidence on this. But hey, it's okay it's only for the poor people.
As Diana Jue pointed out in her exccellent article "Seven expert tips to help your invention succeed where others fail: Distribution" on Engineering for Change:
"From what I’ve seen of the availability of products in rural stores, most companies assume that because rural customers shave lower incomes, they won’t pay for nicer, higher-quality products. As a result, most products that reach rural markets are low cost and low quality......You will stand out in the marketplace if you position yourself as a high-quality brand. This means treating rural customers with the respect that all customers deserve.."
I'd argue that this goes for construction projects, products and services aimed at and involving low income people in general. If I, as an engineer, were to go about laying bricks for a latrine then we'd only be able to build as many latrines as I can manage at once. Even if I, as an engineer, employed a load of brickies to do it for me and personally supervised their work we'd only get to a limited scale because I, as the implementing individual, would be the limiting factor.
At the Sanihub project what we're aiming to do, on the other hand, is to use engineering analysis to determine the key factor in our product. In this case it's a low-volume U-bend in a pour flush system which only requires 2 litres of water to flush. We've taken direct inspiration IDE.org's EZ Latrine and are focussing on producing a standard chamber box/U-bend product that can be installed in to any latrine construction to allow people to have a water sealed toilet with an offset pit for a similar price to a standard long drop or VIP latrine. The parts have all been developed elsewhere; you can buy standard low flush P-bends in India, IDE,org developed the box in Cambodia, you can get good concrete slabs in Uganda and high quality ceramic squat pans are imported as standard. I've also been told that the low volume flushing pedestal that PiD demonstrated at the FSM2 conference in Durban is being developed with Envirosan, so will be available for import soon. Adapting the products and designing systems for them to function within is the important role of the engineer.
We'll then work with entrepreneurs to deliver the product to the market. We intend that these entrepreneurs (as construction professionals) will employ masons (brick layers) and ensure quality of construction or else they'll face a loss to their reputation and their revenue. Or they could simply sell the product with instructions and allow households to employ the mason themselves as the current system works - this 'hands-off' approach has worked well for Watershed in Cambodia. The important thing is that they'll have a high quality product at the heart of their latrine which will ensure better performance.
The other challenge that households, entrepreneurs and masons face is in the inconsistency of the building materials available on the market. There are no standards in local brick manufacturing; unless the household trusts the mason to buy quality bricks they need to do it themselves which seriously increases the transactional cost due to lost time for work and other earnings. Influencing the national brick manufacturing industry is not our role as a WatSan organisation but it would be a fascinating project! What if, however, there was a standardised construction system that would be specific to latrine construction in Uganda (and potentially the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa)? If that were available then standard, high quality and low cost products could be produced to reduce the transactional cost for households, reduce the time taken for construction, ensure a decent standard of construction and, this the ultimate aim, allow more people to build better toilets which would have a positive impact on their quality of life.
No comments:
Post a Comment