|
>View discussions about this entry Country: United States
Organization: Silver Ceramic Systems
Field of Work - Water
Year the initative began (yyyy) - 2007
Positioning in the Mosaic of solutions
What is your signature innovation, your new idea, in one sentence? -
Pilot projects need to be setup, indicating all of the POU technologies, including: sodium hypochlorite (chlorine), solar distillation, biosand filtration, ceramic filters and rainwater harvesting. Describe your innovation. What makes your idea unique and different than others doing work in the field? -
The purpose of the pilot projects is to showcase each of the technologies, so that the positive attributes of each can be seen. The pilot project is to promote and disseminate the understanding of each technology, with the direct input of promoters per technology, per country or region. It should be the prospective users of the technologies who have a chance to compare and contrast, then choose. This should happen on behalf of the householders, several steps up in the marketplace, and the project should be duplicated in at least several different locations. The choices of the POU technologies need to be seen together, for the sake of complete information. Because many choices become apparent, and there is greater knowledge, the managers and staff who are involved with POU water should witness an increased interest. Delivery Model: How do you implement your innovation and apply it to the challenge/problem you are addressing? -
Note that the management of POU pilot projects is not for any particular person or organization, but rather is for the common good. Working with NGOs and INGOs the managers and staff of the projects shall be chosen, per location. The pilot project will be available to interface with organizations that deliver watsan through the social aspects. Since 95% of the work to be done on watsan involves the social aspects, the pilot project will simply present choices of technology. How do you plan to expand your innovation? -
Individual pilot projects would make reports, then these would be compared, and fine tuning would then be possible. This process includes, importantly the prospective beneficiaries, through those in the markets, so that the choices of technology will tend more to be 'bottom up,' and not simply, 'top down.' Those promoting recognized POU technologies should be considered as part of this entry. The notion of such pilot projects has tended to be a small but persistent subject of conversation during numerous household water conferences. Do you have any existing partnerships, and if so, how do you create them? - What type of partnerships to do need?
Partnerships will tend to be informal, including all those persons and organizations who share the passion and the goal of household water. Provide one sentence describing your impact/intended impact. -
The common good should be achievable when all work together, and this should greatly benefit those who do not have access to piped water.
How many people have you served or plan to serve? -
For the household, cermaic filter systems of SilverCeramicSystems.com there may be 1,000 or more, beneficiary households. For the other POU technologies there are many many more, numbering in the millions. By pooling technologies, beginning in pilot projects, many additional millions should benefit.
Please list any other measures of the impact of your innovation? -
There is a great deal of evidence supporting each of the individual technologies: sodium hypochlorite, solardis, biosand, ceramic filters and rainwater harvesting. This evidence is to be found at the entries and web sites of the promoters of the individual technologies.
Exactly who are the beneficiaries of your innovation? -
The ultimate beneficiaries are those who do not have piped water. This will tend to include those who are of low income, who have not had the opportunity of a formal education. How is your initiative financed (or how do you expect your initiative will be financed)? -
While there should certainly be a user buy-in, to insure that prospective users will take seriously the POU systems that they adopt, the sponsorship of implementing agencies will be essential. Householders can be expected to adopt a particular technology, but they cannot be expected to pay for the indirect expenses of management and promotion. Provide information on your finances and organization: - Current Annual budget (2007 fiscal year)?
Annual budget for the past 1-2 years (2006 and 2005)? Annual revenue generated? What are your current sources and/or streams of revenue? Do you currently have sources of earned income (examples?); If not, why? None. The idea of pilot projects of POU technologies is as yet conceptual. Not conceptual are the individual technologies, where the track records are proven. What is the potential demand for your innovation? - How do you estimate this demand?
Number of staff (full-time, part-time, volunteers): Since all of the recognized POU technogies would be included, the potential demand should be very large indeed. What are the main barriers to financial sustainability? -
This question may not be so applicable here, since there is a community of POU technology promoters. The point is to present choices, then the prospective users, through market representitives, can support their particular choices, i.e. making them more sustainable. What is the origin of this innovation? Tell us your story. -
As already mentioned, in each of the household water network conferences there have been those who have persistently expressed a need for pilot projects. This is with a view towards allowing prospective users of all of the POU technologies to make their own choices and decisions. Please provide a personal bio. Note this may be used in Changemakers marketing material -
Reid Harvey is a ceramic industrial designer, with a professional focus on development in the so-called third world. In recent years this has focused more narrowly on pottery water filters, as well pottery cook stoves. Contact Information:
Anthony Harvey
ceramic industrial designer Silver Ceramic Systems (sole proprietorship) Discussions about this entry |
Pilot Projects of POU Technologies
|
|
Hi Reid,
I really enjoyed your entry, I am proposing myself a pilot study in 8 communities of Guatemala between June and December this year, I want to involve the 14 most recognized water purification technologies (yours, the Potters for Peace, Onil Bucket, PUR, Lifestraw, Biosand, Chlorin from PSI, Silverdyne, mine (the UV Bucket) and some more)... If you give me your email I will send you the concept paper for the proposed pilot study. Also, please check my entry (http://www.changemakers.net/en-us/node/7002), and tell me what you think.
TAKE CARE. Florence, UV Bucket Project, flor@niparaja.org
Hi Florence,
Thanks for your comment, and it's great that you're enthusiastic about the pilot plants. Also, in your entry I'm imagining that your combination of micro finance, within the context of a POU pilot project, could be a very productive approach.
I'd like to reiterate that I believe that while presenting the POU technologies it will be *important to maintain a very unbiased approach.* After all, the pilot project is intended to allow for a choice by the end users of the systems, through those who sell to them, one or two steps up in the market.
Reid Harvey
Email: reidharvey@hotmail.com
SilverCeramicSystems.com
Alfred, NY USA
+508 246-1185
Hi Anthony,
There are multiple entries into this competition whose ideas and technologies overlap with yours. I suggest you read through the various entries and seek ways to cooperate with these different groups from around the world.
Best regards,
Brian
Hello,
My thoughts about 'cooperation' go along the lines of sharing ideas with the perspective of improving conditions where-ever possible.
Best wishes,
Brian
Hi Brian,
Your last two comments were almost the same, so I didn't respond to the second, however I'd like to add a bit of clarity. First, this is actually the second entry of SilverCeramicSystems.com, regarding Pilot Projects of POU technologies, and I hope I've been clear in this entry that the pilot projects would be all about sharing. The fact that there is a lot of complexity implicit to the evaluation process, and you're quite correct, that the proponents of the various technologies need urgently to work together.
Secondly, as I have mentioned I have bent over backwards to encourage any and all, who would like to make our filter systems to do so. The fact is that as earthenware filters go ours is small, robust and highly efficient. By contrast the other earthenware filters are large, fragile and more expensive.
As to efficiency of these several types of filters, please allow me to liken this situation to the fuel efficiency of an automobile. If fuel efficiency is a leading criterion for the choice of a car, why would anyone choose a bigger car that gets only 20 miles per gallon (~32 kms. per gallon), when they could be driving a smaller car that gets 40 miles (~64 kms per gallon)?
Personally, I'd much prefer the more efficient car, and for the filters I'd go for the more efficient choice. But if there are others who want big and fragile, it's entirely up to them. After all, the bigger filters have also provided a lot of good service.
Reid Harvey
SilverCeramicSystems.com
Alfred, NY USA
+508 246-1185
Brian,
What kind of cooperation would you suggest? I'm ready to learn more, but let me tell you how it is that I believe our entry is conforming to your suggestions. You may recall your very similar comment, with respect to the other of our two entries. And you're absolutely correct, that cooperation among promoters of ceramic filters is of critical importance.
Certainly there are big similarities between the several earthenware silver filters that have entries here. But I don't believe that you can expect us to just embrace each other, as if we would decide on adopting one model of filter. The history of development suggests that this may not be a realistic approach at all.
Rather, the cooperation should come in the form of a cordial sharing of ideas. For our part I have made clear that any and all who would like to make pottery filters of this design are free to do so, without necessarily crediting us.
Any other observations you may have will be appreciated. I believe that it is only through such discussion that we can meet our common objectives. The common good should always be uppermost.
Reid
Reid Harvey
SilverCeramicSystems.com
Alfred, NY USA
+508 246-1185
Many thanks for your excellant observations, though I feel as if my responding may place me in a mine field. Yours are questions that do need to be addressed. I'm now recalling from the first Nairobi conference that a representitive of the Ministry of Health had expressed some sentiments that are very similar to your own, concerning taste, etc.
I seriously believe that the credibility of each one of the recognized technologies (sodium hypochlorite, solardis, biosand filters, ceramic filters and rainwater harvesting) would be diminished if all of these clear choices were not made available. That's why I've suggested, 'pilot projects of pou technologies.'
Unfortunately I do not believe that I am in a position to 'broach this critical issue' at all, as you've suggested, since to do so would create the perception that I am too self interested or lacking in objectivity. Rather I am now of the firm opinion that ALL of the presently recognized technologies are needed, in a single ball of wax. Each technology has a unique set of attributes, and it's a key to allow choices, not only to the householders but to those in the market, a step up from the household.
Since we are discussing this I will say that a problem with ceramic filters is that there is a long lead time, setting up the factory, mobilizing resources, creating awareness, etc. Other technologies do not face this issue. For example, recently in Nairobi I was asked if we could provide 1,000 filter systems within three weeks, for a prospective project in disaster preparedness. Such short notice is not practical in ceramics in general, a point which is frequently not appreciated. However, scratch the surface and I will tell you some other wonderful things about ceramic filters. (NOTE, please check the March 3, 2008 *update* to www.SilverCeramicSystems.com )
Let's work together to make the dream of clean water a reality!
Bye for now.
Reid Harvey
SilverCeramicSystems.com
Alfred, NY USA
+508 246-1185
I'm very glad to hear of - & hopefully get to know - another party in this field who is involved "beyond the 'Pale'" of simply the interest of expediency. I had a business meeting with a local (i.e., Nairobi-based) Water/Sanitary system engineering & installation services company, at the time the referenced conference was going on, so could only get in at the very last day, for closing ceremonies & wrap up.
However, I chanced to have a meeting with a Deputy Minister of Kenya's Water Resources Ministry the following day. Our conversation focused on the very explicit - even to the point of being challenging, if not demanding - closing statements, reflecting the consensus views of a large number (if not the majority) of attendees; i.e., that they wanted "greater transparency in knowing the full health side-effects (of the chemical agents being used to purify the water systems being installed for them); plus, the production of 'purified water' that Tasted, Smelled and Looked good to drink!"
In this regard, the vocalizations of the attendees at that conference seemed to be expressing both an awareness, and new criteria, for what is both tolerable and acceptable for their POTABLE water needs. My experience with a lot of NGO's, and even Service/Humanitarian Aid organizations long & deeply involved in providing either the actual delivery or the wherewithal to provide such services, are still pretty hung up on what's most expedient, vs. what's overall best for our common constituency of recipients.
Has this been your experience as well? And if so, has your coalition network deigned to even broach this critical issue yet?
We are not members as such of the WHO Network, but have attended several conferences in Nairobi and the one in Bangkok. Plus I'll be at the one in Accra.
About the infighting, the further forward (or backward) I go the more I see that the fighting is implicit to many, if not most organizations. So why should our network be different? Actually, I came to learn that I myself had been regarded as an infighter (though I believe I had simply been somewhat insensitive). Hopefully I'm making amends.
Recently I heard about a Buddhist monk who had quit his monastery, because of all the infighting.
Yes, let's do talk further.
Reid Harvey
SilverCeramicSystems.com
Alfred, NY USA
+508 246-1185
Are you now a stakeholder member of, or otherwise officially associated with WHO's Household Home Water Network? I sounds like, even if not, you've attended (or at least read the transcripts) of some of their meetings.
I'd be very interested in discussing this with you; we'll be attending their (now several-times postponed) next Int'l Symposium in Accra, and have presented an Abstract for consideration that you may be interested in knowing about. We share many of your concerns and observations regarding the broader field of Water & Sanitation applied technology.