 Happy New Year to all of you who are joining the webinar series here for the first time. So good morning, good afternoon, or good evening, depending where you're joining us from today. And welcome to Engineering for Change, or E4C for Short. Today we're very pleased to bring you the latest in our 2014 webinar series, the very first webinar in that series today. And we developed this webinar in collaboration with the WASH Tech Consortium, which was actually started with a number of amazing organizations, including the Water and Sanitation for Africa and Burkina Faso, the Network for Water and Sanitation Uganda, Training, Research and Networking for Development in Ghana, the Kwame Nukleum University of Science and Tech in Ghana, WaterAid in Ghana, Uganda, Burkina Faso, as well as European partners such as the IRC in the Netherlands, the SCAP Foundation in Switzerland, and Cranfield University in WaterAid in the UK. You'll be hearing from a few of the representatives from these organizations today and trying to pull everybody together from across the world is certainly as expected creating some technical difficulties. My name is Yana Aranda and I'll be moderating today's webinar. When I'm not moderating webinars, I work with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers or ASME, where I'm a senior program manager. So today's webinar, I'd like to tell you a little bit about it, so the title is From Technologies to Lasting Services, Identifying and Addressing Barriers to Sustainability, Fantastic Topics. WASH, which is acronym for Water, Sanitation and Hygiene, our key focus area that is the E-for-C, and we're always seeking to share insights about models facilitating the selection and integration of technology-based solutions. To aid in this effort, we've invited today's presenters, Yulia Smet, Andre Olszewski, and Benedict Tufour of the WASH Check Project Consortium. We thank you all for joining us today. Before we get rolling, I'd like to take a moment to recognize the coordinators of the E-for-C webinar series, generally. Along with myself, we have Holly Schneider-Ballant, Victoria Chung, and Alex Torres, all of ISHRA Police, who are conducting and delivering the webinar series. Thank you so much, team. If anybody out there has questions about the series, or would like to make a recommendation for future topics and speakers, we invite you to contact us via the email address visible on the slide. Before we hand things over to our presenters for today, we thought it would be a great idea to remind you about E-for-C and who we are. E-for-C is a global community able for 17,000 technically minded members and more than 30,000 social media followers such as engineers, technologists, representatives from NGOs, and social scientists who work together to resolve critical humanitarian challenges, whether in wash, energy, health, agriculture, or other areas faced by underserved communities worldwide. We invite you to join E-for-C by becoming a member. E-for-C membership provides cost-free access to a growing inventory of field-tested solutions and related information from all the members of our coalition, including professional societies such as ASME, IEEE, CELINE, and ASHRAE, as well as academic supporters like MIT's D-Lab, international development agencies such as USAID, UWB, USA, and practical action, as well as access to a passionate, engaged community working to make people's lives better all over the world. Registration is easy and it's free. Check out our website, engineeringforchange.org to learn more and sign up. The webinar you're participating in today is one installment of the Engineering for Change webinar series. This free, publicly available series of online seminars showcases the best practices and thinking of leaders in the field who bring innovative technology and solutions to bear on global humanitarian and development challenges. Information on upcoming installments in the series, as well as archive videos of past presentations, can be found on the E4C webinars page, engineeringforchange-webinars.org. If you're following us on Twitter today, I'd also like you to invite you to join the conversation with the hashtag E4C webinars. Our next webinar will be in February, likely at 11 a.m. Eastern Center time on the topic of emerging trends in social entrepreneurship. Please stay tuned to the E4C webinars page for updates on the presenters and registration details. If you're already a E4C member, we'll be sending you an invitation to the webinar directly. So that's a little bit more incentive for you to join us, so you'll get an invitation to the next webinar. A few housekeeping items before we get started. So I'd like to see where everyone is from today. I'll start with an example by typing where I'm dialing in from today. Very snowy New York City. Any technical questions or literature problems should go in this chat window where I've just typed in my location. So let's see where we have folks joining us from today. Oh, looks like we have some shy participants. Haven't seen it. The message is coming in yet. Also feel free. Oh, there they come. Just as I said that thanks, guys. We have folks from Scotland, some folks from New Jersey, probably getting a last note today too. All right. Very good. Thank you, everybody. Feel free to also send a private chat to myself or Holly should you have any difficulties during the webinar. You can also use the chat window to type in any remarks. During the webinar, please use the Q&A window, which is located directly below the chat window to type in your questions to the presenter. That way we can keep track of the questions that are coming. If you're listening to the audio broadcast and you encounter any troubles, try hitting stop and then start. If that doesn't work, you can use the call in number for the teleconference. You may also want to try opening up WebEx in a different browser. Following the webinar, for those of you who are seeking to get professional development hours to maintain licensing, please send a request for consecutive completion showing one PDH for discussion by following the instructions on the top of the Web page, which is on engineeringforchange-webinars.org. We have folks here from all over. So I see folks from India, from Texas, from Massachusetts, Alabama, Ghana, but based in D.C., and so forth. Thank you so much. Someone else from Tehran? Cool. All right. So in today's webinar, we'll be focusing on the critical pathway that follows after the design of washed technologies to innovation and lasting services. I think we'll discuss the rationale and provide an introduction to the technology applicability framework, a technology introduction process, two new tools developed by the WashTec project. And with that, I'd like to introduce you to Yill Smith, who is a senior program officer in the Africa team of the IRC International Water and Sanitation Center and currently the manager of the WashTec conversion. Yill? Okay. Thank you very much. Welcome all to this webinar on tools for sustainable wash. That means water supply, sanitation, and hygiene services. I'm Yill Smith from the IRC Water and Sanitation Center and manager of WashTec project. We are glad to see that we have a good number of participants from the U.S., the Americas, Europe, and even Asia. Great. Thanks for joining this WashTec webinar organized by Engineering for Change. WashTec is a project financed by the EU FP7 program and implemented by WaterAid UK and its country offices, Scott Foundation in Switzerland, Grand Field University in UK, and partners in three project countries. These are Water and Sanitation for Africa in Burkina Faso, Trent and KNUST in Ghana, and Netwas in Uganda, and of course the IRC, International Water and Sanitation Center in the Netherlands, where I'm coming from, and that is the Project Lead Agency. What is the rationale for WashTec? Indeed, as you know, it can be challenging to assess if a wash technology really has the potential to provide sustainable services and continues to work at scale. Despite large investments, promising technologies can and do still break down, unfortunately. Two new tools developed by the WashTec project and tested in Burkina Faso, Ghana, and Uganda help identify blockages to sustainability using technology validation as an entry point. The Technology Applicability Framework, also called TUF, is a decision support tool that helps to assess if a specific wash technology is applicable in a certain context. A complementary tool was developed, the technology introduction process, also called TIP, that defines the roles and activities of key actors needed for successful introduction and scaling up of the technology in a country. What are the possible uses of TUF and TIP in the wash sector? Of course, as a project and with the wash sectors in the project countries, this was a key issue. The project had to make clear what was the potential use for the sector, and it was to be determined by the interest of the sector. What is thereby in? And the people in the country will of course ask, what's in it for me? Actually, four main users came very clearly out, four main users of the TUF and the TIP. The first one is for validation of new wash technologies, so new wash technologies for application in the country. Technology developers who want to get their technology accepted in that country, they approach national level ministries which will apply the TUF and the TIP. The second use that came out was for validation of an existing wash technology for application in a specific context. For instance, at the district or a sub-district level, there's a specific local, social, cultural, economic, and other conditions. Then the TUF is applied before the technology is being introduced at that decentralized level. Barriers to sustainability are being identified and can be addressed prior to local introduction of the specific wash technology. The third use was as a monitoring tool to assess why one technology is a success while another one is a failure, and that can be both at local level and it can be at national level. Then hindrances and success factors are determined that will lead to choosing either another technology or formulating actions to do better. The fourth use that came out was as a tool in a project, a program appraisal process in which the proposed wash technology is being appraised for its potential to contribute to a sustainable wash services. In this webinar, we have short presentations by Andriy Olszewski from SCUF on the TUF and the TIP, and another presentation by Benedict II-IV from Trent on the TUF application in Ghana. The full program is shown on this slide, and now I'd like to give the floor to Andriy to briefly introduce the TUF and the TIP. Andriy. Thank you very much, Jo. Good morning. Hello, everybody. My name is Andriy Olszewski. I am working at SCAT Foundation in Switzerland as a water and environmental sanitation expert. The title of my presentation is From Wash Technologies to Innovation and Lasting Services. In my presentation, I will briefly introduce the two tools you have mentioned already, the underlying concepts, which should help you to efficiently decide on wash solutions, but also on how to take these solutions and technologies to scale. The TUF and the TIP are presented in a figure here on the slide. On the left-hand side, you see the TUF, which is under the application of wash solutions and on the assessment of the scalability of wash solutions, whereas the TIP, the technology introduction process on the right-hand side, is more on the introduction. The tools are complementary, and the purpose, as Jo has mentioned, is different. So the TUF is a proper assessment tool, whereas the TIP is a guiding document. In my presentation, I will focus mostly on the TUF, but on both terms, you will find all the documentation, all reports on the web link, which I show later at the end of the presentation. All documents are in the public domain, and you can access them for free. So what is the rationale we were actually dealing with? I guess some of you are in the wash sector and in the development context, so the situation which we face in the sector is that too often key aspects for sustainability get forgotten in technology assessments, aspects such as affordability of users to pay for operation maintenance or the skill sets, which is not there to operate the technologies. But also, often, technologies are introduced without following clear and transparent procedures so that important actors get not involved in the process or in time. And even more important, technologies are introduced where there is no need for these technologies or no demand. And lastly, we have seen in many case studies that there is little or hardly any exchange between the actors in the process, for example, from the piloting, which means there is little sharing and learning in the sector. So in the technology assessments and introduction, we don't see only issues around sustainability but also poor linkages with respect to governance, accountability, or innovation. And to overcome these issues and to come up with a robust tool, we developed and tested the TAF. The TAF, as you mentioned, is a decision support tool for assessing applicability and scalability of a specific wash technology in a specific context. The target users of the TAF include government at local and national level, the local private sector, local NGOs, international NGOs, development partners, academia. This is important because this will also define the design of the tool, the level of process and complexity of how the tool works. This is exactly where we went to. We deliberately defined an easy-to-use tool following a step-wise and participatory process and to get the data for the assessment. The whole process includes as well desk work but also field visits and the workshop which involves all relevant actors, which means the users of the technologies, the provider of producers, but also the regulators or facilitators. I will go more in detail here. So how do we address these issues, like governance and accountability in this tool? This is mainly done through three components, a step-wise process, comprehensive set of indicators and a transparent way of presenting the results. I start with the process here. So the TAF application follows the process in four steps. The first step is the screening. The screening, the purpose is to filter out those technologies where there is no demand or where these technologies are not applicable, for example, for physical reasons. If you have a rainwater harvesting device and there is no rain, this might be obvious, but there are less or more tricky aspects. First, the screening. You go for the assessment, which is followed by the presentation of results and later the interpretation and conclusion. So you go step-by-step, you document, and within all these steps, most of the key actors are involved. I come to the set of indicators. In the TAF assessment, a set of 18 indicators is used to allow a comprehensive assessment of the applicability and scalability of wash technology. Because wash tech and all the discussions about taking technologies to scale is not only about technologies, but it's also about the process, how you take the technologies to scale, whether there is subsidies, for example, the capacity of the supply chain and so on. So you don't focus only on the technology itself. It's much more complex. So on the slide, you see a matrix of 18 squares with the indicators. We also see on the left-hand side, on the vertical axis the so-called sustainability dimensions, which include social dimension, economic dimension, environmental, legal institutional, organizational dimension, talk about skills and knowledge, and finally, the technology itself. These six dimensions, they are the overarching sustainability concept from our part of you to capture the issues around technology and technology uptake. And the other axis, you see particular perspectives of the key actors involved in the introduction and use of technologies. So you have the user of the technology, or the one who's buying the technology, the first column. You have the producer or provider in the middle column. And finally, you have the regulator and investor facilitator. And this matrix produces a set of 18 indicators. So for example, if we go to the economic dimension and the user perspective, you come up to the indicator number four, which is affordability. And here affordability means affordability of the user to pay for the capital investment costs or for minor or major operation and maintenance costs. If the technology is too expensive to be operated, it won't be sustainable on the long run. And this is, for example, one of the key indicators in our system. So here you see the 18 indicators. Now, how do you get to the assessment for each of these 18 indicators? There is a set of questions with prepared guiding and scoring questions in the questionnaire. In a workshop involving all relevant actors like governments, private sector and the users, these questions are now answered. And the data to answer these questions are collected from desk work, but also from the field research. Finally, the workshop participants agree on one score for each of the 18 indicators. And the scoring rule is very similar to a traffic light system. You see this on the right-hand side. So green means high value, positive, supportive characteristics, where red is low value, negative or critical characteristics, yellow or zero we use, whether there is a potential impact or could become critical and which needs a longer follow-up. And if you don't have sufficient information to do a score, give a score, then we leave it black with a question mark and need a follow-up to clarify. So this is the scoring rule and within the workshop you go through question by question and put score by score, most likely by dimension. So each of the actors will come in. The users will be in the workshop and give in their voice. The producers are there and also the regulator and facilitators. So all listen to the answers and finally agree on one score. And of course it needs a proper facilitation of the workshop to go through this process. The resulting scores are presented in a graphical profile as you see on the slide and as you can easily see this profile is very similar to the matrix we have seen and indicate matrix. So this profile and this way of presenting the scores offers you different entry points for interpretation. If you go by dimension you can check very easily whether there is a particular dimension which is critical, whether a lot of red or yellow dots for example. You can do the same for the perspective and can identify particular actors which have a critical profile. Or you can focus on specific selected indicators for topics like operation maintenance. So with this I would like to close my presentation of the TAF and very briefly on the second tool the technology introduction process tip. It is a guidance tool so descriptive for supporting actors to plan, manage and monitor, wash technology validation and introduction. It is a generic tool which needs to be adapted to country procedures and it is flexible in a way that you can fit to different contexts different cost models and any wash technology. And with the term cost model we mean the level and way, for example the costs are shared between the users and other parties and here we call about transfers or subsidies. For example, if there is no subsidy we talk about marketplace approach and in some cases technologies are given away with the subsidy but the operation maintenance cost should be covered by the users so there are different cost models. Based on the analysis of different case studies on technology introduction we have identified three phases which are key for the description of the introduction of technologies and these three phases are the invention phase, the tipping point uptake and use phase and as you can see in the figure on the left hand side the blue line the number of units sold to the market are taken up by the market and in the very beginning you have a little number and this might be the period where you do the testing piloting where you improve the technology and where you assess the cost of the launch and if you come to a positive result you prepare the launch and these two sub phases we call the invention phase and if it's the right mix the market will take up more units which is in the blue part of this figure, the tipping point and maybe you reach saturation in the green part after quite a long time. As you know technology interaction is complex it needs a lot of actors to be involved and a lot of financial resources and to get it right you need a good description and a division of tasks and this is exactly what the tip should provide for you and based on the concept of the three phases on the right hand side of the slide you see that for each of these phases in the tip you have some generic description of the tasks of actors to support the introduction process this works for water or for sanitation hygiene technologies and for different cost models the tough could play a very relevant role in the testing phase for visibility for example but as you mentioned it could also play a role during the uptake process so with this I would like to close the presentation but finally I want to highlight that the tough was regularly tested on the ground in three countries in Africa and Burkina Faso, Ghana and Uganda in three rounds on 13 different wash technologies and also the tip was used in the countries to develop country specific national guidelines for technology introduction I think will give you more information on this and now the tough and tip are taken up by national health institutions in each of the countries but even outside wash there are already institutions that work only with the documents and have applied the tough for example in Nicaragua without any external support so now I come to the end if you want to find more information on the tools on the results of the testing background reports please go to the resource website www.washtechnologies.net there you can find all the documents on tough and tip and background documentation if you have specific questions please feel free to drop a mail to me and so we can get in contact I'd like to thank you very much for your interest I'm happy to answer your questions but now I would like to hand over to my colleague Benedict who will give you interesting insight information on the application of the tough in Ghana thank you very much okay it's back to me actually Yoosmet from the IRC in the Netherlands because apparently the telephone line and the connection with Benedict 2.4 from Ghana doesn't work so we have a kind of a contingency plan B for this of course I am based in Netherlands but I have visited Ghana regularly and I know what they have done in Ghana as a project manager so I hope to give a good picture of the evolution of the tough and the tip in Ghana as one of the three countries that's not me Benedict who was supposed to be here so the tough and the tip in Ghana as I mentioned already we have three actually two implementing or three implementing agencies that's correct it's Trent with the resource center network it's a capacity building institution KNUSD is a university in Kumasi and state Ghana so they worked with a number of sector institutions particularly the ministry of water resources works and housing and then the water directorate CWSA that stands for community water and sanitation agency environmental hygiene and sanitation directorate in the ministry of local government the school hygiene education program and CogniWars which is an umbrella organization of Wash NGOs in Ghana and of course they worked with the private sector because it's all around technology particularly technology developers in the country and consultants who are involved in this technology business and of course also in the sustainability of water services and the light projects were Triple S and WashCost these are two major projects that IRC is implementing amongst others in Ghana both financed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and they are very much around sustainability of water services and service delivery and WashCost is the costing of Wash you can say they have developed around that and we have used a number of their characteristics and their findings their results in this program the sector platforms that were used in Ghana were the national level learning alliance platform it's a learning structure at the national level they have them also at the district level and sometimes they were also used the MOLA conference series that is a conference in Ghana which brings together many organizations NGOs they started with that the MOLA conferences but also development partners government politicians they all come together then you have the Ghana Wash Forum another platform for discussion that was used for the embedding of the WashTech programs and other working groups that are there the top testing in Ghana was around seven technologies and as Andre explained we were using various rounds to come to a good product a good tool of course you don't have that from the very first round you start with the draft and then you improve and we came together after every round and we improved the structures of what you have seen as a final the process involved preparation in these testing rounds data collection validation and scoring workshops so that was done four times and in the four times we applied seven technologies so on average about two technologies per round the top testing as I said was refined after each round and the result is as Andre was showing this kind of visualization this diagram with the various sustainability dimensions and the key perspectives the users, the private providers the technology produces and the regulators and the facilitators in the last column actually as a result we have this diagram of course but we also have a technology brief we call it recommendation notes that explains how we arrived or the group that applied it arrived at the green, the yellow or the red or the black colors in each of these circles and that also then after discussions indicated what has to be done more really is the technology promising for sustainable war services or not but there are still a number of barriers there are still a number of problems that have to be solved before you can really go ahead then these will have to be explained and have of course later on to be solved before the sector can really give a green light and these all are being put down in the recommendation notes technology so you will see we will give you later the link to a website where you find all these technology recommendation notes, briefs with all these scoring diagrams for the 17 technologies tested out of which we had seven in Ghana how did the sector react to that project actually the feedback on the top was very positive from the Ghanaian war sector they said it's a comprehensive tool that helps to unpack the sustainability and check the sustainability of the technology that was being considered they said this is long overdue and it has a great value that the sector will use the testing process has made the issue sharper and straightforward in terms of sustainability of technologies it's always a bit vague there are interests of different parties and this top is a neutral tool you can say which helps to make your conclusions neutral as well and how to go forward it's a participatory approach and ensures transparency through questionnaires that we have that you further develop for the specific context and the workshop creates a transparent participatory platform forum and that's important because we have been able to do it in a more electronic way in a more smart phone way but that would then you put all the data in the black box and something comes out and maybe people are also manipulating it in that process it's a bit risky so we got very good feedback on this participatory approach actually it requires some skills and you have a process that is unbiased and effective facilitation will make that you get a good results so this is the top and the tip in the process where you have a new technology or an existing technology this looks a bit complicated but it's rather simple if you start here at the top left that's the host and the environmental health sanitation directorate and they get many applications for applying new technologies in the country and then they ask for presentation on that from the manufacturer and then the discussion will come and a decision will be taken and they may say okay we think your technology or even drop this at all or they said okay this is promising and we go for a pilot we select the communities you do some data collection and monitoring and then you apply the top in full and then you get this scoring and you get also the recommendation for adoption and again you may rethink your design you may drop it entirely or the sector may say yes you can use the technology when you have an existing technology you don't have to start from the top because the country has already accepted the technology but it has to be tested in a specific context in a specific district or locality and then you can shortcut this whole process taking the top and the tip forward in Ghana but we said the sector has adopted it and that's great the hosts have been identified at the CWSA and Environmental Health and Sanitation Directorate and the Ministry of Local Government the official landing over is being scheduled to take place and they will upload the information to the websites and legislation is going to come and there is a huge demand a direct demand for application of the top and the tip so there are already three technologies in the pipeline you can say new technologies that are going to be tested using the top there is need of course for continuous technical support to build the sector capacity I will give the floor I think to facilitate the question and answer part session Thank you so much Yoh I really appreciate you picking us up while we couldn't unfortunately hear from Benedict but we do want everybody to know that Benedict can hear us thankfully and if you have a specific question for him from the Ghanaian perspective then he will be happy to answer your question via the chat function so just FYI and with that I would like to open up the Q&A for all of our panelists excuse me so we do have a couple of questions that came in already so the question is what modifications are needed to apply the top and tips to non-market based technologies for example municipal water system Yoh or Andre would you like to talk about one? Yeah I can answer to this question actually the top of the tip they are not limited to market or non-market based technologies so the scope of technology we had in the testing it was the 13 technologies they included road pumps so on very household level VIP latrines but even more complex systems like biosand filters for bigger water treatment systems we had sand dams we had solar powered pipe schemes so I would say there is no need to adapt the top to this type of municipal water supply what you have to take into consideration is just to clearly define the system you are looking at and then to go through the process properly and to be directly on what you are talking about but as such I think you shouldn't need to adapt the top Thank you so you mentioned a couple of examples there and one question specifically came up if there was a prediction by the top or a determination that a particular technology was not suitable for whatever reason what have you had in the outcomes in your test runs of steps forward and have any of those steps been taken or the tools or the technology gone through another round of the test? Yes, okay I can yes, so we did three rounds of testing and in some rounds we had even the same technology for example the rope pump in all three countries in the same round so finally if you go to the country specific results of the testing, the technology please you will see the profile and also the recommendation and some of the recommendation are quite critical still because for example the rope pump in Ghana there are some issues because some of the for example the clients look for a higher level of support and service so for them the rope pump will be even minor and this is exactly what the tough will work out if this type of technology and the service level provided will be sufficient for the need and the demand in a given society in a given context but this doesn't mean that this technology will not be applicable and will not have market response in a different context so you won't get the answer this pump is not working at all in all over the country it's more very specific to the context and the way you have introduced this technology that you have maybe some potential if you do XYZ or there are a lot of risks because of A, B and C this is the type of answer you get and if you go to the technology briefs you will get all the information for these different technologies that's great may I add something please go ahead yes I think what André is saying is very correct and the scoring resulting from the workshop is very important so I think the question is very very relevant because from that scoring and in the recommendation notes, technology recommendation notes you find the obstacles the barriers but also the successes of course of that technology through the traffic lights but we are most interested I mean also in the obstacles what will be a barrier for success what will be a barrier for a sustainable service and these have to be taken away to before it's really giving a green light to go ahead to apply it and if there's only one and the government and the users because we don't know where the red light was of course say okay we can within the timeframe of a few months we can assure that this is going to be green now then you can say go ahead but otherwise if there are several red ones and they still want to continue to go for another round probably and in between the responsible agencies that can be the user, that can be the government the facilitator, it can be the private sector have to take actions, steps to take away the obstacle towards a sustainable service from that technology so I think that's why it's a very very good question thank you Fantastic and yes and I couldn't agree more and I'm sure our listeners couldn't agree more that it's invaluable to really understand where the issue or the barrier to success really happened or what are some of these hurdles that are being faced so one of the things you said is that the incredible importance of the actors in the deployment of these particular technologies so in terms of deploying and having this effective application of the TAP what would you say are the greatest challenges for the TAP adoption Andrei? For me there's maybe one challenge apart from the funding so I start from funding because as I mentioned it's a participatory process you go to the field and you have workshops involving all the relevant actors which means you have costs and based on the 13 different applications we come to an estimate of about 3 to 5,000 USD for one assessment of one technology in a region Maybe this looks high but if you compare this cost to some costs for poor introduction of technologies isn't that high The challenge I see is you need a good facilitator of the process because they are for sure vested interests that might interfere in the process so you need a strong independent facilitator but I think there are good people out there Those are challenges I think that are quite common just in general so yes I can appreciate that we have a few more questions that have come in so we talk about these feedback loops and of course with the technology trying to understand the adoption requires us to go through the TAP to really understand the barriers Now has the TAP its own feedback mechanism so that as you learn and go beyond the trials that you've already conducted that you'll be able to continuously improve on the TAP and TIP itself Yes if I may say what we have been doing is to test the tool to develop and test the tool in four rounds and I think we have a good product but it can be further adjusted and improved and particularly adjusted to some specific context, countries and it can also be further adjusted for a group of technologies I would say if you have more for next just to give an example a wastewater treatment system then I think the questions that we have at the moment may not be directly applicable and they need to be converted to a set of questions that are suitable sound for that technology that's why it is important to have in the testing a research institution or a resource center involved a host like a government has not as a core business the development of research tools or these testing tools so they may still come back to organizations like the partners we have in the countries to really further tailor make them the tool for that application that you have in mind thank you thank you I'm just going to piggyback off of that question and that answer that you gave with respect to those organizations that you already have indicated as partnering and familiar with the path and tip are you going to be continuing to build out the list of groups that are adopting the process so that as a resource for individuals or other groups that are looking to either share knowledge or go directly to these groups to help them with adoption exactly on the web page watchtechnologies.net there is an area for exchange of experiences and I would like to encourage all of you to use the TAS but also to feedback your experiences and also the critical findings because this is only how we can learn and I would be very happy to get in contact with you to learn and so that we can further develop the tools definitely and there are already a number of organizations that are scaling up scaling out the application of the path and the tip particularly water rate I've been introducing it in Tanzania and in Nicaragua there has been a great interest from Water for People CSR the EU is interested in it European Union and they want to share it for consideration to the delegations in the countries so I mean it's public domain now and anybody can apply it you will see later where you can find it on the website but of course I mean we are still open to give support and we hope to get a good feedback so that we get a dynamic product that is improving over time we are very pleased to try and move the needle on that for you and we will be certainly sharing this webinar as a recording of our followers we've reached the end of our webinar for today and for those of you who are asking I see in the question came in thank you so much for that segue there will be a recording of this webinar posted on the webinar page for Engineering for Change for those of you who are just professional development our code is listed if you have more questions that did not go answered today I would like to get in touch with our presenters feel free to please email us at webinars at engineeringforchange.org with that I'd like to thank Yo, Benedict, Andre and Carmen who have been kind to join us today and share with us the TAF end tip we are thrilled to have you and thrilled to be part of the effort of promoting these really incredibly useful tools so thank you to everybody we'll see you on the next webinar in February and don't forget to become any first e-member to get information on that have a good day everybody thank you bye everybody bye bye