Rob Mitchell

I participated in this well-conducted and well-attended event, but, unfortunately, had to leave before it concluded.

Some (constructive) observations, however, based on the discussion in which I was involved.

I understand, I think, that SIGHT groups are intended to "leverage technology for sustainable development". My first observation is that "technology" encompasses far more than "EE" (as in IEEE) technology, and, for many communities, may not be their highest priority for sustainable development.

I presume "leverage" means to ensure the maximum positive impact for the resources and effort applied.

I think the lessons of past development work of any kind is that the keys to sustainability and maximum effect are the building of a relationship with the communities concerned, recognising their sovereignty, and understanding their context and priorities.

Sustainable outcomes involving any "technology" are dependent on the leadership and management of projects built on these fundamentals.

So, SIGHT's aims are entirely admirable, but the temptation to find a problem which suits the "technology" needs to be avoided, in favour of finding and partnering with communities and developing/applying technologies to suit their needs and priorities.

From this perspective, SIGHT members will benefit from membership of this Community of Practice, and access to its growing BOK, discussion forums, and network of practitioners.

Hi Nick.

Sorry to have been so long responding to this.

As you will doubtless have gathered from my BOK and Forum posts, I do have strong views about practitioner competencies applicable to humanitarian work (as we have defined it for the purposes of the Community of Practice).

Essentially, while judgments about the appropriateness and nature of technology are important, that aspect of engineering involvement is, in my opinion, less challenging (and less critical for success) than the requirement for insightful leadership.

This capacity can, of course, be development "on deployment", but is unlikely to be fully appreciated without suitable pre-deployment preparation.

The obvious difference for an engineer in a "traditional" context is the constrained timeframe in which projects and programs take place, vs ongoing employment with its more open-ended engagement.

So, practitioners need, as a minimum, to understand context (see my BOK and Forum posts), the intricacies of communication (networks, styles, content, frequency), decision making (quality, ethics, consistency), and motivation (a rationale for following).

The nature of engagement with local community participants, and the  extent of their ownership of the undertaking must also be understood.

I would suggest that the better practitioners are informed regarding these issues, the more effectively their competencies will develop.

Looking forward to comments from others as we develop a competency framework.

Rob

Very much agree with Jeremy's comment.

I think the diversity of backgrounds of engineers working in the humanitarian space will demonstrate the breadth of the capability of engineers to contribute in this field - from peak leadership of development generally to the application of appropriate technology.

The accompanying discussion paper is prompted by the observable developments which have transpired during the COVID19 crisis.

It seeks to highlight the interconnected nature of social systems, and to suggest how humanitarian practice and education should include systemic comprehension as a valuable aspect of humanitarian context.

All comments, constructive criticisms, etc welcomed.

COVIDlessons200529.docx Appendix A in XL format .xlsx

Opening the whole humanitarian sector, from leadership to execution, from specific technology to community development, to engineers is an important challenge.

In part, this involves raising the awareness of engineers that their particular leadership strengths can bring unique value to any humanitarian enterprise.

Explaining these strengths is a challenge which can usefully be taken up by our College of Leadership and Management (CLM).

The attached ppt file, originally a Sydney CLM event, makes the case, and was an important step in the Sydney CLM/ Canberra CLM co-operation which brought about this Humanitarian Engineering Community of Practice.

I hope CLM can, indeed, bring some focus to the question "what's special about engineering leadership".

CLM 180614.ppt

Will be interesting to hear any outcomes from this gathering  Noteworthy that there is a view suggesting the need for a "reimagined" role - clearly a perception that the "traditional" role is inadequate in the modern context.

Our Community of Practice will be "soft-launched" at WEC in Melbourne in November. The convention will feature several aspects of Humanitarian Engineering via paper presentations, showcases and poster displays. Attached are two abstracts of a poster display and the most formal announcement of the Community's creation. We hope to interact with as many as possible of our like-minded colleagues at WEC.

WEC poster abstract 190928.docx Our Future as Humanitarian Engineers 190928.docx