Thank you, Jonathan for the WASHCost hint. I always find interesting the things they publish. I am currently registered for the online course 'Costing Sustainable Services'. There are 150 people registered and until last week there were some places left for the second edition, that starts on the 19th of November: www.washcost.info/page/2351

There was also a post from July in the IRC website that mention they are releasing soon, probably during the course, a prototype of an online tool, the WASHCost calculator. The idea is that with this tool, we'll be able to better plan, budget, manage and evaluate WASH service delivery models. www.irc.nl/page/73087

Let's see what comes from this training. I'll be glad to share with you some impressions.

Best regards,
Cecília.

Dear All,
As WASHCost is spreading its LCCA methodology for costing sustainable water, sanitation and hygiene services worldwide, Ghana too is not left out with some lasting impressions so far for the past five years. Check out some briefing notes from the WASHCost Project in Ghana, attached.


you can also check here:

www.washcost.info/page/198

Dear all, especially washcost calculator development participants, dear Jeske Verhoeven.
I’m a bit worried about the wash calculator and I would kindly ask to an answer to my post about the washcost infosheet2. When I read about the notice on the upcoming
wash cost calculator I really got nervous because the probable and logic base would be the infosheet information (and more detailed numbers). As I criticized these numbers and the generalizing approach I do have concerns about the possibility of a GOOD calculator tool.

A calculator in an area where there is almost no reliable information available is on one hand a very good activity when it puts together lots of costs and good sepcific data, but on the other hand … exactly as there is no reliable information available it can be very dangerous. Much more as we are talking about a tool which is intended to be used not in just one country.

I think it might be good to do a “testdrive” in one country where there was good information collected. (you might have done that already). This test drive could be published and the decisive parameters could be expressed with a sensitivity analysis. On this basis it could be possible that experts (expert = people who do understand what influence have numbers and they do not use default values for the sensitive parameters) do their testing.
With great interest I read the post by Bismark
which has attached some papers
the first (of August 2011)
ghana background paper
has a table 2 which says basic service is service for ALL family members.




I consider that definition right. In parallel there is the table 2 in the publication
ghana sanitation
That says again that if “some family members have access” it is enough for basic access! In my opinion it changed from right to wrong for the definition of basic service (see my post about the infosheet).

So the basis for the calculator is not right.
My main concern about the calculator is the false security of a “tool” in hands of somebody who is validating ... “50 governments, multilaterals, training institutions, International NGOs and donors are either using or planning to use the life-cycle costs approach.”

There are many people who do not understand that specific numbers are better than generalized numbers and they do not understand that a tool is a help and not the ultimate point for decision, They do not understand that a range of 10 between numbers means a very broad area for interpretation. So the typical situation will be:

• You came to a life cycle cost of X for a specific solution and you as well show the costs for an alternative X+Y.
• The use of the calculator “proves” that your numbers are wrong …. as it uses other (general) border criteria and other assumptions and come to the solution that the other solution is better than your solution. So your solution is out, most of the times you will not have the possibility to show the error.
• There will be a hint for the application “specific numbers are always better than generalized default numbers “ – but nobody will follow that out of laziness.

My solution for that would be a tool that obligates the user to put in some work and own thinking to come to a result … a tool that obligates the user to actively put in at least the sensible data by her/himself.

Not to ramble on without any reaction I do stop here and wait for comments.

Thanks

Christoph

Dear Christoph,

I just received a link to this post.

Thanks for your interest in the WASHCost and the sanitation level indicators. I think you bring up some interesting areas for discussion. I am currently managing the WASHCost Calculator project and I think it is great that you are already posing questions and have ideas because we will need user feedback throughout 2013 as we develop the tool. I agree with you that the tool should not prescriptive about benchmark ranges of costs. It should provide different types of users with different functions as not everyone will be using the tool in the same way.

First, this project is building on the experience of WASHCost in Andhra Pradesh India, Burkina Faso, Ghana, and Mozambique. In each country, there are slightly different norms on the indicators, especially for what constitutes a basic level of service. During collection, the broad parameters of various service levels were defined to accommodate country norms, and that each country used different sub indicators against these parameters. Also in keeping with data that was feasible to collect in that country.

Second, we are using each indicator to measure what is actually happening on the ground and basing our figures on that (therefore the ranges). That is why there is a gradation in service level, in order to understand what the reality is. I think there is scope for discussing the exact definition for each level and indicator and we should also recognise that these are not necessarily the same in every country. There are currently global discussions on better defining what should be the ideal level, especially in regards to the post-2015 development goals.

The WASHCost Calculator is being built in an environment where the discussion about the norms and exact definitions are different in different contexts and global indicators are changing. That is why the tool will be built to be able to deal with these kinds of changes. The database and the way that data is presented will be appropriate for this.

It is important to note that the tool has several functions that I think will work perfectly fine in this environment: to demonstrate the current benchmark data that we have on the cost of sanitation (not prescriptive), to allow users to search a database of sanitation service level and cost information (the evidence), to allow users to run their own analysis and estimates based on more detailed inputs (for users that want to do more), and to allow users to actually collect data in the field and do some basic analysis and to update benchmarks based on the results (for managers want to monitor the real situation). The exact functionalities will be determined during the course of 2013 based on real user feedback about what they value most.

We are not going to develop one tool for all types of users. Rather some functions, where the user will do more work, will only be for those that are really interested. In some cases, people will just want to integrate the functions or surveys into their own systems. We will try to encourage the sharing of data in any case. Also, we will never have a perfect data set, but as we start to have more data on a particular context, e.g. a country and technology, then we should be able to narrow the current benchmark ranges.

Ultimately, I expect that this tool will be a way for sanitation professionals to start improving the data of life-cycle costs and service levels that they work with, both in planning and in monitoring.

Just a note, I'm sure some of my colleagues, better placed to answer specific sanitation content issues, will be able to respond after the holidays. Thanks for your patience on that account.

Best,

Nick Dickinson

Follow me on twitter: @waternote

Dear Nick,
thanks for the reply, a lot of aspects got clearer now. Sounds good what your wrote.
So we keep in touch after the holidays.
Happy Christmas and have a good time and a successful calculation in 2013.

Best regards,
Christoph Platzer