In chapter 8 Roland Stulz and Karl Wehrle are treating the aspects
- Two different scenarios
- Proceeding and organisation models
- Financing model
A follow-up programme should help to make FCR a mature technology with the help of further analysis and detail studies concerning
· Technical rationale
· Costs and economics
· Knowhow transfer
· Decision making package
There exist several possibilities to aim at this goal. In the following pages we present two scenarios which show how a worldwide FCR knowhow network and technical assistance could be established (scenario 1 ) or how FCR knowhow can be desseminated by more improvised methods.
This study has shown that a follow-up programme is a must if FCR is to become a mature technology and if misunderstandings and failures are to be avoided. Mainly with regard to the growing demand for low-cost roofing materials it is essential that potential and existing producers and users of FCR get additional information and technical assistance.
Scenario 1 shows the establishment of several regional knowhow centres which
· provide the producers with knowhow for the establishment of new production plants
· provide the producers with the latest knowhow and findings of the FCR panel, mainly concerning technical rationale, management and marketing
· provide the producers with troubleshooting and technical assistance if problems or mistakes occur during production and application
· provide the FCR panel with monitoring and with new facts and experience arising from research and development.
Operating and organisation model.
The scenario 1 is set up with the goal to arrive at a consistent and equal level of knowhow and technical understanding in all main AT organisations. This seems to be necessary to avoid misunderstandings and deficiencies in knowhow transfer in the dissemination process of FCR technology. Further failures and disappointments through bad FCR experience should tee minimised by this approach.
The advantages of this scenario are:
+ Coordinated dissemination of the new FCR technology.
+ Coordinated monitoring and feedback of experiences for analysis and improvement of knowhow. Effective further research and development.
+ New findings through further analysis and detail studies are available for all panel members and their associate regional centres and producers.
+ Consistent and equal level of knowhow and quality standards world wide.
+ Improvement of the partially flawed Image of FCR through coordinated support by major organisations.
+ After a time-limited introductory phase FCR technology becomes a mature technology which stands on its own feet. The financial involvement and technical assistance of the donor organisations becomes unnecessary after the intensive Introductory phase.
+ In consequence time-limited financial engagement of donor organisations.
+ Elimination of the confusion caused by conflicting advice by different consultants because an international panel can be approached for a ruling.
The disadvantages of scenario 1 are:
- Rather high financial Investment of donor organisations In the Introductory phase. Considering the potential reduction of failures, this Investment is economically justified in the long term.
- Organising and coordinating the regional centres needs a certain time.
- The FCR panel needs some coordination and possibly administration.
Several organisations - e.g. GATE, ITDG, ATI, DEH, GRETetc. - select or establish a regional centre of their choice. Jointly with this regional centre they establish new pilot projects or collaborate with existing FCR producers.
The role of such regional centres would be to:
- provide the FCR producers with planning help for the establishment of new production plants
- provide the producers with the most valid findings of the FCR panel, mainly concerning the technical rationale, management and marketing
- help the producers with continued technical support and with troubleshooting if problems or mistakes occur.
The organisations coordinate their planning and monitoring of the regional centres and pilot projects within a FCR panel to be set up.
This panel consists of the representatives of the donor organisations and of the FCR project group (or part of it) which procured this report.
The panel designates the persons who are responsible for the technical contacts with the regional centers and producers and for their provision with latest technical knowhow, technical and management assistance as well as trouble shooting.
The producers are associate members of the regional centres according to guidelines which have to be established by the FCR panel.
The regional centres take over the role of disseminating FCR knowhow and assisting the producers.
The FCR panel has completed its initial task. Now it takes a background role as an information pool and an enquiry and answer service ntre.
The regional centres communicate one with another. One of the regional centres takes over the role as information and enquiry and answer service from the FCR panel.
The FCR technology has become a mature and self-reliant technology which is supported by a network of local producers of equipment. It works mainly on a commercial basis like other small industrial processes.
Scenario 2 shows the improvisation method of how the FCR technology can be disseminated with the help of
· one main private equipment and
· several consultants assisting independently diverse FCR producers.
· trial and error reaming method for FCR producers who start production without having the money to finance proper initial training and technical assistance by consultants.
Operating and organisation model
The scenario 2 is more or less the extrapolation into the future of how FCR technology has been disseminated so far.
This scenario allows each organisation and FCR producer to go his own way without worrying about what happens to others. The advantages of this scenario 2 are:
+ No coordination with other organisations is necessary. Fast reaction of donor is possible.
+ Each organisation or producer can start production right away without being involved in a process of further analysis and detail studies.
+ Each donor can act Individually.
+ No FCR panel (with administration) has to be established.
+ The costs for disseminating the FCR knowhow can be limited to a minimum.
+ Every consultant can develop his own specialities; he is not limited by common quality standards.
The disadvantages of this scenario 2 are:
- Monitoring as well as exchange and evaluation of experiences are rendered more difficult.
- New findings through further analysis and detail studies cannot be disseminated to all producers because no information network exists.
- No consistent and equal level of knowhow.
- No common quality standards.
- Risk of damage to the FCR Image due to failures and misunderstandings with the trial and error method.
- Risk of long term costs for donor organisations due to consultancies and closing down of deficient production plants after production failures, wrong application and insufficient management and marketing.
- The FCR knowhow can be monopolised by one single equipment supplier.
- Conflicts of Interest may occur if the equipment supplier is consultant at the same time. As equipment supplier he will hardly accept local alternatives to his methods.