ENGINEERS WITHOUT BORDERS-USAPROGRAM QUALITY-RATINGS

QUALITY OF OUR WORKProject Process Improvements• Feedback throughout design development• Post trip reports gather lessons learned• Ongoing monitoring reports measure impact

over time

Resource Development• Technical webinars• Process and development webinars• Mentor resources

Access to these and other resources is available through the Member pages of our website under the Webinars, Project Resources and Chapter Resources tabs. Sign in at www.ewb-usa.org.

RATING OUR QUALITYWhy Rate the Work of Chapters?• Donor outreach• Grant eligibility• New program eligibility

Organizational Goals of Rating System• Transparency with chapters • Improved quality over time• Stronger adherence to principles

SUBMITTAL RATINGS• Ratings are per report submittal.

• Report ratings are averaged over time.

• Each of 10 Principles is considered.

• 1 is poor, 2 is good, 3 is excellent.

• Rated value is indicated in PM notes.

A full description of the criteria used by EWB-USA Project Managers to rate project submittals is available on the homepage of the Member pages of our website, www.ewb-usa.org.

RATING OUTCOMES1 – POORMore than one Principle is not met. • Not eligible for grants and awards.

3 – EXCELLENTExceptional example of all Principles.• Recommended for grants and project

awards.

2 – GOODAdequately addresses Principles.• Not a 1 or a 3. • Eligible for grants, not recommended for

project awards.

PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT1. ENGINEERING

2. COMMUNITY DRIVEN

3. COMMITMENT

4. QUALITY

5. SAFETY

EWB-USA Principles of Development define our approach to the field of community development work. Find the complete list on our website: http://ewb-usa.org/projects/ewb-usa-community-programs.

PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT6. EXPERTISE

7. APPROPRIATENESS

8. SUSTAINABILITY

9. PARTNERS

10.EDUCATION

EWB-USA Principles of Development define our approach to the field of community development work. Find the complete list on our website: http://ewb-usa.org/projects/ewb-usa-community-programs.

EXAMPLE RATINGSEach PM is rating between 10 and 30 reports each month.

Similar project scopes can receive very different ratings.

Make sure to demonstrate how your team will address each principle.

How would you rate the following project submittals?

SANITATION - 525 • Latrine project to improve standard design

in area.• Strong and long-term relationship with

community and local partners.• Community involvement in various stages of

project development. • No design details submitted for pit or

superstructure. Eventual TAC approval after much follow-up.

• Decent HASP.• Team has previous experience with latrines.• Latrine design uses local materials.• Strong educational program.

SOLID WASTE - 525• Engineering scope that community didn’t

have access to otherwise.• Extensive work with local government.• Very little review time required for TAC

approval. • HASP is well prepared. • Technically sound team.• Scope developed with community to

ensure it was appropriate.• Partnering directly with local community.• Community funding is a challenge,

chapter is working with them to find a solution.

• Solid waste management education and training incorporated in plans.

SANITATION - 525 • Engineering scope meets basic human

needs, but is too large.• Very little community input to design.• Long term commitment is met. • Poor quality drawings, copied conceptual

drawings from other org.• Intended to implement without being

present, send money to community.• No site safety plan.• Excellent technical skills on team.• No community funding, minimal labor

contribution. • Local materials are used. • Education plan is developed. • Working with community directly. • Non responsive to PM and TAC feedback.

WATER SUPPLY - 521• Water Supply project with unique water

quality challenges.• Collaboration with various in-country

partners driving project.• Plans for long-term involvement.• Comprehensive, clear, and concise pre-

assessment report.• Thorough HASP.• Chapter mentors are uniquely qualified for

unique project challenges.• Focus on relationship building and getting to

know community resources and constraints on first trip.

• Clear focus on long-term sustainability.• Very responsive to feedback.

WATER SUPPLY• Gravity water supply for 25 homes• 522, 523, 524, 525 reports submitted

within a week of each other - less than one month prior to travel.

• Plan drawings for an entire water system were in one sketch on a quarter of a standard letter size page.

• Few design details.• Professional Mentor not on PM review call

and stated later the design was inadequate

• Students lacked expertise to address questions on PM review call

• Good in-country partner• The University had a pre-existing long

term relationship with community.

WATER SUPPLY - 523• Scope is large, but meeting basic human

needs.• Community is involved during planning.• Team has resources and plans to fulfill five

year commitment.• Report is of professional quality. • Follows process, but submitted late.• Mentor has experience directly related to

project.• Technology is appropriate for community. • NGO is providing education contribution.• No monitoring and evaluation plan. • Team is responsive to PM feedback.• Team is working with community and NGO to

get feedback during design.

WATER SUPPLY - 526• Standard water supply project.• No mention of community

involvement in post-implementation report.

• Sporadic progress on project.• Post-Implementation report was

significantly lacking. • Unaware of H&S requirements.• Team has strong qualifications.• Good job on design as presented to

TAC. • Appropriate technology being used.• Nothing reported on project

sustainability.

CROP PROCESSOR - 525• Solves engineering problem the community

does not have resources to.• Community has given feedback.• Team has resources to stay committed to

community. • Submittal is of professional quality. • Safety for community is considered.• Professional Mentor is very involved. • Technical and community development

expertise is demonstrated.• Local materials will be used.• Future O&M already included in design.• Community is providing funding. • Monitoring and education plan exist.• Training for travel team is planned.

BRIDGE - 521• Pedestrian bridge of reasonable size

identified by community as a priority

• Chapter had successfully completed previous projects in community

• Report lacking method to gather hydrology and hydraulic data

• Report was submitted late• No bridge design mentor on the

team• Chapter was considering reasonable

technologies

INTERPRETING RATINGS• Descriptions of ratings criteria are

on website.

• One rating will not reflect the overall quality of the entire project.

• Ratings will provide guidance on how to improve quality.

• Currently the majority of projects are rated a 2 – good quality.

QUESTIONS?

www.ewb-usa.org

Contact your Chapter Relations ManagerTracy.Beavers@ewb-usa.org(South Central Region)

Contact your reviewing Project Managerpeter.waugh@ewb-usa.orgtiffany.martindale@ewb-usa.orgkelly.latham@ewb-usa.orgjoshua.knight@ewb-usa.org