31. Field Ready

Welcome to Trumanitarian. I'm your host, Lars Peter Nissen. Every now and again, you come across an idea that is so simple, and yet so powerful, that it amazes and in a sense annoys you that you did not come up with it yourself. Field Ready is based on the insight that the supplies we need in crisis should be produced as locally as possible, both to empower the communities affected by the crisis, but also to save resources. In this week's episode, Eric James, the co-founder of Field Ready, explains the approach of the organisation and the impact of its work. Unlike most people I know in the tech innovation space, Eric is not predominantly in this week's episode, Eric James, the co founder of Field Ready, explains the work of the organisation and the impact it has. Unlike most people I know in the tech innovation space, Eric is not predominantly driven by a love for check and you'll hear him, again and again, emphasise the need for contextually adapted approach and for local ownership. He's not peddling some silver bullet, magical technical solution that can fly around and solve all our problems. I find Eric's perspective refreshing and smart, I think Field Ready does great work, and that the organisation, in its DNA, has some of the elements that we need to build the humanitarian sector of the future. I hope you enjoy the conversation as much as Eric and I did. Thank you for listening.

Eric James, welcome to Trumanitarian.

Thank you for having me.

You are a humanitarian practitioner, you've worked in the field since the mid 199Os, you've also spent a good deal of time in academia and have written a couple of books, we'll have those books in the show notes for the listeners to look up. They really interesting reads. I'd like to highlight, in particular, the piece you wrote on Afghanistan. That's, I think, of course very timely these days and worth a read and it's a thought provoking perspective you put on Afghanistan, I find. But you've also spent some time dealing with startups. And you're here today to talk about an organisation you founded called Field Ready? And why don't you tell us your origin story of Field Ready? Where did the idea come from? How... What is it?

Again, thanks for having me. Yeah, it comes out of my experience and that of my co-founders, and really a passion for the work we do, but also a frustration that people all over the world don't have what they need when and where they need it. And I think that the sort of story for me, and my co-founders have their own experiences, examples of this, but I was travelling through South Sudan and came across... well went... stopped in a sub office. And there were a bunch of vehicles in the compound, of course, and I was talking to the logistician. And they said, You know, it's great that you have all these resources to get the teams around. And he said, Well, actually, none of them are working just that one. And that one's only working because we've cannibalised small parts from all the others. And I kind of... you know, that was sad. And then I realised they didn't have Amazon Prime out there. And okay, so we work to slowly get those back. But that story kept with me. And a couple years later, I was in Silicon Valley and learning about all the really exciting things on the horizon in terms of new technology and ways of thinking. And I was really looking for the next thing to do, and looked in all... thought about all the different sectors I'd worked in and different problems I found and one kept coming back, it's kind of the elephant in the room, and that is supply chains. Supply chains just aren't what they should be in our sector. There's certainly been improvements over the years, there's been a lot of professionalisation around logistics and so on, for sure. But there's nothing that's really been transformational in the way that we get supplies to where they're needed. And, you know, research shows that there's, you know, somewhere between 60 and 80% of funding on humanitarian aid is spent in logistics in one form or another. So it's a really sort of a big problem in our in our sector. And one very difficult one to deal with. Hardware is not easy to work on. And so, you know, putting two and two together, spending some time to reflect on my experiences, and then meeting my co-founders, we realised that Hey, we should be able to just make things where they're needed. You know, why rely on, then, this sort of centralised, global... globalised way of making things and having them shipped all over the world, there's massive inefficiencies there. And not that you can make everything locally, but certainly there's a large percentage of the catalogues that we all rely on that could be made locally and we can help build capacity locally and rely on people's resilience, their own their own talents and resources and so on. And that's exactly the ideas behind field ready. And so we started off with a small project in Haiti and showed that we could make small health-related items there, very quickly, very inexpensively. And we've gone from there, and now in about 10 countries and working in a variety of different contexts I'm happy to talk about.

So when you say local production, are we talking, teaching people how to do a vehicle repair workshop, is it primarily 3D printing? What kind of tech is supporting this production? What what do you bring to the table?

Yeah we... well, all sorts of technologies can be brought to bear and of course, vehicles are repaired locally all the time, it depends on the parts and so production of spare parts is a critical part of the piece that we bring. No, we don't work with vehicles but... or typically, we could in the future. But we're more focused on traditional humanitarian sectors, health is a particularly important one, and wash. But even things like search and rescue and social protection and so on that... there's a whole catalogue of parts we could. Now the technology itself really varies and what we do is find the best way... best one that suits the actual requirements that we find on the ground. So 3D printing is a very useful one, because it's... because of its different capabilities that it brings. So it can make a whole variety of parts, and, you know, you can make something in the wash sector one hour, and the next hour makes something completely unrelated. And you have a very strong ability to customise parts and do prototyping and so on. It's not as good with mass production. And so we look at other technologies for that, including very common things like injection moulding, which are big and expensive to do, but the commercial sector usually doesn't pivot quick enough to work in the acute situations of an emergency and that's one of the things we also bring to bear is that connecting or that enabling part or role in particular context?

So you say 60 to 70% of humanitarian expenditure is tied up in supply chain. What's the perspective here? If you had the resources you would love to have and you could scale Field Ready as much as you wanted to, what's your thinking, how much of these 60 70% could be implemented in a more efficient manner through you guys?

Well, what we're finding is, on average, a reduction of cost in half, much faster delivery times (so sometimes going from weeks and months to hours and days), and as I mentioned, and this is really important, the use of local capacity in building that and in empowering people to find their own solutions. Now, that's all not always done on every particular product or programme we have. But those are the kinds of transformational things that we're looking at.

But we agree you're not going to 3D print 10,000 jerrycans, right? No.

No that.... and that's why you have to use different technologies.

Yeah. So what is, for you, the example you use if you want to really sell the idea to somebody? What's the "Yeah, this is exactly where we have that pivotal, transformational impact that I want us to have"?

Well, to me, our sector is all about context. And what works in Syria, (and we've had a lot of good things working in Syria, particularly in the health sector, where we are fixing small little parts for things like EKG machines that help lots of people after that)... It's very different contexts in the Pacific where we also work or Bangladesh and the Rohingya camps, we have massive amounts of people and you need lots of things over a longer period of time, and that's where working with government, with other agencies, and in particularly the private sector, to use the capabilities they have to do mass production. So the bucket, the sort of Oxfam-design bucket that is really important in our sector is actually in our logo for a reason. And that's because NFIs, for a large number of people, are often flown around at high expense and inefficient, other inefficiencies there. And when we are able to do that kind of thing, we're meeting all sorts of different needs. And so it's hard to say we have this one example that sort of perfectly illustrates every context. What we do is talk about different contexts and how we meet those needs in those in those different areas.

Yeah, but the EKG machine, I fully get that. You can you can do highly specialised, tailored, bespoke little thingies is that enables a machine to work again. That's really powerful and much cheaper than getting it from US or China, wherever it was produced. I... but I'm not sure I fully understand the mass production. So the buckets, the jerrycans, what's your role? Is it... What do you bring? Do you just bring expertise to the field? Do you bring some kind of tech? What is it?

Yeah, let me let me give you an example. Because it's... I appreciate you asking the question. Several years ago in... we were in Nepal and there was flooding in the south of the country. And we were talking to one of the larger NGOs, and they said, Well, we have a plan to distribute buckets to every family. And of course, this is usually a package of NFI, a kit that would be distributed. They couldn't afford the buckets because the buckets are mass produced, actually, in that case, very close by in Pakistan, those buckets are then shipped to the UK, or a place like the Copenhagen warehouse for UNICEF, and then, on demand, they're shipped back through a central depot like Dubai, and then finally, to Katmandu. And it's still not even at the last mile, they have to be sent from there to the distribution points. And so you take something that's a common item, that's relatively low cost, you'll see prices like in the catalogues. But that's where that's where the cost is usually at the Global depot. That extra supply chain adds an unknown amount of cost, actually. No one's really tracking those costs. So when they call it... when they talk about landed cost it's usually as formula for a specific amount of... a specific formula. So when you add up those costs, and the time involved, and then (and the green impact, not to mention) whereas where we could have a bucket mould working with a local manufacturer to produce the amount needed to make huge savings using local capacity, a positive green impact, and so on. So it is quite transformational when it's been put in place.

If I hear you right, what what field ready is, is that you bring frontline the capability to leverage whatever is there in the field. To produce whatever is needed, you may supplement with some tech, like 3D printers or whatever, but really it is that presence in the area where it is needed together with expertise, that your core business.

That's right, so we're not outside trying to push product in. We're on the inside shoulder shoulder with affected populations, in the same coordination meetings that many of your listeners might be, and really trying to identify the gaps and what kind of things we can do that really provide a leveraging impact. You know, sometimes it is about specific products so we often have a product focus. But more often, more importantly, we have a programme focus. So we're about putting capability in place and creating opportunities for training so that people can do it themselves and so on.

So that begs the question, do... What do we see in the field? Do we see Field Ready as an operational actor with an operational footprint? Do you work through existing humanitarian organisations? Do link with... who to link with?

Yeah, I'd say we work very much like other NGOs, we're nonprofit. We, you know, again, attend the same sort of coordination meetings, talk to the same donors, work with the same population affected population, we do assessments and, you know, design programmes, just like anyone else, but when it comes to where we get the materials and the final products and so on, that's where we have a distinct departure from the normal way of doing things. So in an acute situation, we'll make things ourselves, our own teams and the people we hire locally. When you're in longer term situations, we more often are working with partners, and some of them are the large NGOs and others are, you know, ministries of health and affected populations themselves, and in those cases, that's when we try to, you know, create solutions that really have an impact that otherwise aren't being done. If the market is taking care of those needs, we would not try and do it ourselves. And that's one of the key reasons why we're nonprofit.

So if we go back to Nepal and talk buckets, right, you say it doesn't seem to make sense to send these buckets on a trip from Pakistan to Copenhagen, and then come back to Nepal. We'll make them here. So what? You go to... Who do you go to and say, Are you on the market for some buckets? You know, surely you don't set up your own distribution of 10,000 buckets?

You're right. Yeah. Yeah, well, today, we focus mostly on those things that are fixes, repairs, prototypes, and so on. We, in the Pacific, and now Bangladesh, we're looking at that... doing more mass production. And in those cases, were... because we're an NGO, and we're part of all the mechanisms and so on, the cluster system, we have a sense of what needs there are, the population size, and so on, but we also have a sense of the capability because... that's already existing on the ground and the resources available, because we're talking to government and to... and businesses on the ground to see what they are able to do. And, you know, things like injection moulding is available in most countries. And that's where you're able to, you know, make tens of thousands of items. If you were to have the mould and identify the demand in place and talk to the right people who have the resources, typically donors.

Okay, so you're sort of agnostic with respect to who you work with in terms of the agencies actually distributing to the affected population, you're more on the on the supply side, you could say, so you're there to ensure that it is available locally in for a cheaper price, and more quickly, through the use of more smart engagement with the existing capabilities or capacities on the ground?

That's right. So we're sort of added value value partner. I would say we're also agnostic about technology. Because in some cases, yes, it helps to make the first one as a, you know, using basic additive manufacturing or things like CNC machining, but then how do you make a lot of them, you may... we may do something else. We may even use traditional crafts and so on. It really depends on what, what's needed on the ground. We've made everything from, you know, beds and privacy screens and so on, mobilising people and in a way that hadn't been done before.

And so how is the relation to the guys who fly in the buckets from Copenhagen? How, how do they look at you?

I think they're looking at us as a new way of doing things and potentially a new partner. In some of the conversations we've had, you know, the problems we're talking about are... have a lot of different dimensions. And, you know, most anyone would agree, like, you know, flying and things are, you know, sort of, option of last resort, and if there's a better way we can do that, then certainly local people and donors want to see that.

So you're not experiencing any sort of pushback. It's like what these guys? Who do they think they are? It's more like, it's interesting, or we don't have capacity to engage with them? But how do they see you?

Yeah, I... You know, I don't know what their private conversations are. But we're also not that big. What we're offering is a new approach that adds to the toolkit of people who are in procurement and logistics, and I think that's very much welcomed. We're not going to start to 3D print food or, you know, mass produced plastic sheeting and these kinds of special items. I think what we're doing is adding a whole set of capability that can really address some of the supply chain gaps that exist and also fill things that aren't... may not even be in the supply chain, but that people on the ground definitely want and that that's that's something that the big people on the outside aren't aren't necessarily providing.

So how would you describe the theory of change, if you want, or the business model. Is this like a proof of concept strategy? Or Look, this can be done, so then everybody will think this is really clever and start doing it themselves? Is it a disruption of the existing humanitarian modality? What is it?

Well, I think we're definitely past the proof of concept stage. We're working in about 10 countries on a variety of different contexts. In each of those contexts, the experiences can be... or the way that the programme, you know, programme activities are carried out can be quite different. We see ourselves very much working within the aid sector and being a good partner. So, you know, some of that is demonstrating a model that other... an operational model that can that others can follow. In other cases, it's, you know, as I mentioned, in an acute situation, we're providing... we're making things directly there on the ground. As things sort of stabilise, we may work with, you know, local makerspaces, so that, you know, those interested, particularly young people, have a way to learn new skills, perhaps start new businesses. And on a more global side, we're working with a variety of different NGOs and university partners in the UN to look at how local procurements is even done, because that's certainly one of the barriers to doing things this way. It's simply not an option to procure locally in many cases. So we're trying to influence the way that locally made items are perceived. You know, very often they're perceived as, you know, a lesser version of what can be imported. And so producing things that... at the same standard is very important to us. We've done a lot of work around standardising things and connecting groups to understand that you know, if you order this part locally made with us were one of our partners, it'd be the same thing that you brought in internationally and that's a key to getting the mindset or the understanding around local manufacturing changed and a more viable option in the future.

So if you had me at hello. I love the idea. I think feel ready is a brilliant way of thinking innovatively, it's a brilliant way of leveraging the capacities in the field, empowering people, giving agency to the crisis affected populations, enhancing localization: it takes all of the boxes. So I think I think it's fantastic work and I'm really a big fan. When I hear you talk about it. One thing I really like is the way in which you refuse to be put into a nice little box. Right you don't want to say it's this and then you are turned into the guy who goes to the field and makes this little thing here whatever. You really emphasise the need for an organic, participatory, locally defined and driven process. I like it. Where I have small questions, and sort of maybe the 10% where I still think you could push it is, yeah, you... context is king, but there's some things you could be more clear on. You could you could be more specific on the types of strategies you utilise. You know that some things work in Kenya, it's likely that they might also work in Uganda. They... you know, of course these countries are individual but surely field ready could standardise to certain extent what you do. So what's your thinking around that? What... How much can you standardise your approach without losing what is one of your key strengths, the contextualised approach?

You know, so much of what we've done to date has been innovative, or things that have been done literally for the first time and that enabling people's creativity and giving them time to be curious and try things out is is a really key part of any innovative endeavour. But you're right, at a certain point, well, that's been done before. We don't need to redesign that particular thing and there certainly needs to be some guardrails or defining, Hey, those are things that we don't do here. And just so it's clear, you know, one of the things we wouldn't do or really compete with local business or try to displace... we don't use the word disruption. We're far more additive than we are subtractive and trying to take others down. We want to work with groups. So a key part of the things that we've been doing, and this really does have to do with... Creation of standards of sharing openly sharing designs of building capacity within our teams, and those of our partners, and so on, is a big part of our focus in the last year or two, but even increasingly so in the future. So that, you know, if you go to, you know, if you look at the catalogue on our website, there's 100 and... close to 150 different designs on there, arranged by sector, so you can quickly find out if something's in wash, health, or what have you. Those designs are a shared in various places, but also we're happy to work with groups if they need to know the specifications and further details of those. We are working with groups to look at localising or rethinking how local procurement is done and creating the way that those designs and and other things are shared so that there's a standard behind them. And those... Whether you make something in Nepal or Kenya, there... the product is actually the same. And maybe maybe part of it needs to be on the left side or the right side that, you know, for local reason, those can be altered and create a new version of something. But a lot of that work is now maturing, and we're happy to say that we're working with a big host of organisations working on that so that there's efficiencies gained out of that approach.

So I would imagine that you often engage when there is a sudden onset crisis or a spike in a protracted crisis, that so sort of is an event that triggers you to go in. But if I hear you correctly, you stay behind and then work long term with manufacturing locally, is that right?

That's right. I mean, like a lot of organisations, we maintain an emergency response capacity and see that, you know, if there's a conflict or some natural hazard event that's happened, we would go in and try and offer help. In some cases, we've stayed as little as, you know, a couple of months. In other cases, we've, you know, gone into countries, and we're still still working there years after. I think our ability to have an impact actually increases in that reconstruction phase, when you have the ability to do training to work with groups to find out what, you know, what's the underlying causes of things. So, you know, develop people's talents to use local resources. So far more than just about, oh, well, the, here's a need, let's fill that need. It's about working locally and harnessing and all those things that are already existing in a lot of cases and overlooked.

So what I'm thinking is you must have experiences of entering a country sort of prompted by a sudden onset disaster staying behind, and then actually staying long enough for a second crisis to occur. Could you describe the learning curve and how that how that longtime presence helped you react the second time around?

We've been working in chronic situations, that certainly may have had a start point, but the endpoint is very unclear. And our programming can evolve as the situation evolves itself. So in Iraq, for example, we're working with a variety of different makerspaces and working with youth to develop their skills and so on. So it's far less about specific outputs that we've talked about and more about that community engagement and creating a future where others can make their own their own things locally and meet their own needs. In neighbouring Syria, it's very different, right that the conflict was already going when we entered and it doesn't have a clear end in sight. In some cases, I mean, when we're talking about acute onset disasters, a hurricane response for example, we've gone in for a short period of time, found that, you know, the area's largely okay once the aftermath of the hurricane has been addressed, and then we moved on. We also work in situations... Well, in the Pacific in particular where there's... where tropical cyclones are cyclical and the ability to do things to reduce the risks involved with that are long term. And then also the effects of climate change and endemic poverty and so on. So there we have, in the Pacific, an ongoing programme that looks at some of the mass production and things like that. We have done bucket distribution, and designed a new type of latrine slab, and so on: things that take a long time. But then when there is a tropical cyclone there we change or shift gears and respond to that. Using some of the items and capability that we that we put in place and then go back to that DR mode before that happened before, or in between these periods.

You are an enabler or incubator for local capacity in humanitarian situations, is almost what I hear. Does that speak to you?

It certainly does. And I think... or at least, that's the starting point. Incubator, to me, sounds sort of, you know, in the first, earliest phase, but I would see us as working beyond that, because these are, you know, what we do is very simple, but the places that we work are very complex. And so having a relatively simple solution isn't gonna just work in that one case, unless it's, you know, literally that health clinic or that, you know, that community that needs some, you know, things around wash. But when we're talking about the entire community, the entire country, of, you know... and that's undergoing a humanitarian concern, that it's not the kind of thing you can turn around in a couple of months, or a year even.

So, let me see if I get it right. So I would say you operate in humanitarian crisis, so where the severe needs of the population, you try to ensure that the local capacities are as active and utilised as possible in that situation, you do that through a organic process where you go to the field, you see what's there, you figure out what's needed. And then you bring whatever is required in terms of tech, or expertise, or knowledge, or connections or conversations with the UN about, Hey, why do you why don't you buy locally, all of these things, you sort of push all the buttons you can reach to to reach the goal of empowering the local area, whatever that might be, as much as possible, to use their resources to respond to their situations. Is that it?

Yeah, and I would add to that, that we all define humanitarian slightly differently. And I think most of all, you know, humanitarian aid is needed when does when development is not really working, or has failed at some point. And that means it's not just an acute onset situation, or those chronic ones that we we know quite well, but there's all sorts of situations in between. We're talking about, at least on average, 100 million people a year and about half the countries on the planet are either going into or coming out of a disaster of some sort. And so you're talking about a huge portion of the people on the geographic space out there. I think business as usual really has not been addressing all the needs. And we needed to do things... do things that are different, and really going to be transformational, rather than simply incrementing, or slightly small improvements on, what's already been done. And so this is one approach to that, that I hope is really complementary to what others are doing, but works in these different contexts, depending on how they are playing themselves out.

So I would say you are firmly part of a localization agenda. I think that that's clear. And you have... I also fully agree with you on the the need for dramatic shift in, or complementarity in, our approaches as compared to what we... what the overall efforts of the system are. How would you contrast what you do in terms of localization, to... We talk a lot about localization in the sector. How would you contrast your efforts with what you see from from the rest of the system? What is it that you do better than the rest of us?

It's a great question because the localization can be understood in a lot of different ways. And I think it's worth pointing out that our very first programme as Field Ready, was actually in Texas. It was to help... it was helping migrant children coming from Latin America. And so this may seem like, Oh, they this is something developed in the US or in the Global North, and yet again, an idea being brought to the South. And when in fact, it's just what I see are a huge amount of connections between all of us. You know, that old idea of, you know, we're all one people kind of thing. Now, what is really localised are the specific contexts, the experiences, that people have. And, you know, part of the definition of a of a disaster is that local mechanisms can't cope, that something outside is needed, whether that's in in Texas, for migrant children coming in, or for flooding in Europe, for that matter, or, you know, flooded cities in Asia, you know, these are developed places, but outside help us is needed at some level. And... but it's the right kind of outside help that's needed. And one that really mobilises the talents, resources identifies opportunities, rather than just saying, Here's a need, Here's a need, and we're going to fulfill it as soon, as as fast as, we can, whatever consequences are. I hope we can have a much more nuanced and thoughtful approach to localization that is really empowering and that only uses the right sort of know how or, you know, if it needs to be a technology edition, that's fine. But sometimes it's none of that. Sometimes it's a mindset that needs to be conquered. And this is one of the reasons why we work at different levels. So we're not just a sort of a grassroots NGO, we're also trying to influence people's thinking at a global scale as well.

So let's talk mindset. Let me go hardcore humanitarian on you here. Right. So that's great, Eric. I mean, so you can mould a couple of buckets in Nepal, you can fix an EKG machine, wherever. But it's not scalable. And the needs we're dealing with here... I mean, what are you talking about? This... It's nice. I like what you're doing. It's nice. But, you know, this is serious business, you can't scale it. So how would you how would you react to that sort of challenge?

It's a fair question, but I would have to.. What do you mean by scale? When when is something scaled? It's in 2 countries? It's in 200 countries? Vary... you know.

I would say when you have several hundred thousand people on the move, for example, out of a country, when you have massive refugee camps with very sudden influx, when you have Haiti Earthquake 201O: the Mega disasters. I would say, at least, I would say... you know, cute buckets, doesn't, you know, doesn't meet the demand.

Sure, I think I don't think any one solution meets all the demand. That's why I think even the largest organisations, you know, Red Cross comes to mind, are only addressing a finite... put bookends about what they're actually approaching this is, you know, humanitarian aid is a an all of us endeavour, right? But, you know, fair point. How do you... how do you go... you know, how do you meet that demand? I think localising manufacturing is just part of the solution. And this is why we take pains to work as a good partner and to make sure we do things that are to the highest standard and, you know, follow things like sphere and so on. I think it's... a key part of what we do is not just what Field Ready itself and its partners can do, but how this approach can be adopted by others. All the things that go around local manufacturing are... you know, rely on what's there on the ground and what... you know, what kind of pre-existing technology and manufacturing capabilities that are, what kind of knowledge people have, what what's there in stocks and so on. So, in some cases, there's often quite a bit. Not everything is a sort of blank slate where there needs to be flown in by a cargo plane. In many cases... you know, if there were a large earthquake, it could be that the manufacturing capability was unaffected. The assumption that the starting point is often, well, there's nothing there. And what we're saying is, there is there is something there. And if nothing else, there's people's own resilience and ability to think through their own problems and so on. That is certainly scalable. That's how humans do things. I think... So if others, you know, who are... adopt our approach and think about, okay, we're going to push in these this portion of our procurement in the earliest of days, but then we're going to shift to localising the procurement through manual through local manufacturing, that's a big transformation in itself. And it's one that I found worthy to spearhead and have others pick up as we go.

Thank you, Eric, that was a very reasonable answer to a very unreasonable question.

So I have to be honest, I really liked this. And I am really envious that you got this idea. I think it's a fantastic idea. I wish I had had it. But I didn't. What I really like about your approach, because I think it's more than an idea, It's also the approach that I like, is that there is sometimes a tendency, when we get into the area of tech and humanitarian action to go a little bit boys and toys. Everybody wish we have had... we had had our drones when we were kids, that doesn't mean it's useful in the field today, right? And what I really appreciate about your approach is that deeply sort of localised approach where you really go out and context is king, and you base your interventions on, not global ideas about what might work and not work, but really a dialogue and a much more organic way of working, if you can say. I think that that's an incredible strength. Could you speak a bit to how you generally see us working with tech as an industry? How... What are the things we do well, or where do you think we should do better?

Thanks, I think, you know, as you were saying that, a couple of thoughts came to mind. And one was that, you know, the development sector was actually kind of further ahead in this in some ways, if you look at the work of Robert Chambers, for example, participatory development and so on. I actually learned that first and then later on, learned about human-centred design and design thinking. And what struck me is like, yeah, we already do this, right? We get out of the building, you talk to people, you know, you find out what works for them and doesn't so on. Now, the part of the challenge is that has not always been the case in the development sector, and in any humanitarian sector, were often in too much of a rush to, you know, get things done and meet need and so on. So that's why what I really tried to instill in Field Ready is some thought to that, and how we ensure that we're connecting as much as possible, and getting the good ideas from from the field. And that's one of the reasons why that name is... (the field is not great , we had... you know, there's problems with it), but it implies that's where the action is so that's where things should be happening. And we even have a thing (now put on the on hold, partially because of COVID)... But internally, we have a thing called Field Days where people are supposed to be out talking to people and getting to, you know, be closer to the issue. So the problems and challenges. That's now... Some of those things come out of... you know, are part and parcel of things like lean startup. But it's hard when people have not spent sufficient time, you know, on the ground, or what would be considered with customers, really getting to know what are the challenges they face, not just, you know, in a one-hour workshop, but, you know, day in and day out, what are their real gaps and what they're experiencing and how could either information or knowledge or things like hardware or software make a difference in their lives. And so I think that really needs to be the starting point for any sort of so-called solution out there. It's far less about the technology I found than it is about how people think about things and their mindset. And you know... So I'm wary of tech and want to make sure that it's supporting impact in people's lives, most of all.

So when you think ahead to 20, 30, 50 years, what do you hope that humanitarian action has evolved into?

It's such a great question, because there's so much to that. You know, I'm a very optimistic, glass-half-full kind of person, so I want to be able to say, Oh, you know, we work ourselves out of a job. And, you know, human life just continues to get better. But there's a big... there's a reality there. And that's what we've experienced. Over the last couple of years, in particular, has shed light that these are not just... these humanitarian contexts are not just something far away, but in fact can impact all of us on the planet. And so, you know, a typical way of thinking about this stuff is through scenario planning and, you know, you have your cone of uncertainty, and you can say, well, 30 years is beyond the cone and how do we know, but I think there's things we can be doing today. And that is how we think about these things in general, and how we even approach development, and in different ways that can take into account that everything isn't going to be perfect, that there's going to be vulnerability, and instability and so on. It's how we manage that. So rather than just trying to prepare for events in the future, or plan around events in the future, I think it's far more important to prepare for a future that includes that uncertainty. You know, I think everyone knows what a black swan event is, these high impact things that no one could really predict it, there's other kinds of events out there that (and they have also cute names. You know, black elephant and jellyfish) that where, you know, a small thing can become a much bigger thing or a big thing people don't really want to deal with. You know, climate change is one of these things that is going to have impact on us for generations to come. And we need to take that seriously. Or when there's a refugee flow in a far away country, well, you know, they... those people, unfortunately, have probably have a much longer journey than just the country right next to them. They're going to be showing up in other places. These kinds of things have to be taken seriously at their source and we need to find better ways to do that. We need to prepare for that feature, and not just a plan as...

And what I hear you saying is that, core to that is to enhance our tolerance for ambiguity, essentially.

Absolutely, absolutely. I think if there's two things that really set, you know, aid work, humanitarian aid work, apart from development is, one that very high degree of ambiguity. We don't have sort of five year plans and so on. But we also have to do things very quickly. And in that... that involves, you know, pivoting, as they like to say, to new things, and doing things... more than one thing at a time. These are all things that I think are central to being good at humanitarian aid work.

Yeah, I agree with that. I think... I mean, essentially, what we're saying is ambiguity and agility is the core skill set if you are to respond to crisis of the scale and severity, we will meet in the future. And I think one thing that worries me is that I don't see us developing institutions that are particularly well suited to operate in ambiguous environments, or to be very agile for that matter. And I think one thing I keep on coming back to when I think about the future humanitarian sector is what do those institutions look like? How do you actually... is it even possible to build that type of institution, or enough of them, or at the scale that will make a real difference? And I just don't know.

Neither do it. I mean... I think, you know, poor management and poor governance is a big root of all these issues, right?

Yes, yes. So I agree with... sure, poor management, poor governance, yeah, yeah, yeah. But also, really bad architecture, really poorly designed institutions and perverse incentive structures. I think we really have to keep an eye on that because that is really what underlies a lot of the poor management and the poor governance you see.

Yeah, I think there's a risk aversion in that. And then when there's ambiguity or complexity, there's... people go back to their tools and so on. And I think that push for, you know, adopting business practices in the aid sector is, on one hand, helpful, but another hand very not helpful, because this is a different sector. Yeah, we need project management, but we also need a flexibility that allows us to deal with the complexity that we face that isn't present in a, you know, if you're running a big box store or a software company. It's just off the charts. And so we need to have our own ways of thinking in our sector, in the sector, that maybe other sectors could benefit from: that tolerance for extreme ambiguity, that ability to be flexible. You know, another idea from Robert Chambers is adaptive pluralism, and that focus on people, is really important. And I think that that deserves a wider audience as well.

Eric, thank you so much for your work. And I really liked the way in which you think of this not just as the things you produce, but as a transformational shift that will change the way we do business in the future, because we do need to change that. So thank you. And thank you for coming on Trumanitarian.

Thank you so much. I really appreciate it.