e to provide quality inputs, they also need to be sustainable.

Clearly, what is important is not that an organisation makes a margin on activities to ensure their own sustainability. What is important is value of the involvement, and that value relates to outcomes and impact, not input.

Granted, an interesting debate question could be “at what point does margin go beyond organisational sustainability such that a reduction in margin could still ensure sustainability for the implementing organisation while putting more into the activity/project/community”? But let’s not forget that many of these organisations, and many individuals I have been fortunate enough to get to know, contribute far beyond the technical involvement they are contracted to provide.

In a commercial environment, how can more be done?

Certainly in my experience of working with individuals and organisations, the commitment to do more is alive and well. The critical aspect that must be the focus of implementin

The tragic events resulting from the recent Tsunami on Boxing Day 2004 serve to again highlight the fragile nature of many of the world’s communities. In each of these locations the key tasks of treating the sick and injured, ensuring clean water was available, or made available, providing food, accommodation and so on was critically important as a first step on the way to rebuilding these communities.

What further serves to highlight the magnitude of challenges facing the world as a whole, is the fact that many other activities along the development continuum continue to be in operation, or needed. In many cases these are needed in the same countries affected by this tragedy.

Adam Gilchrist of the Australian cricket team, during the telecast of the Tsunami relief match, commented with interest that within a very short period following the disaster, hundreds of millions of dollars became available to support the needs of the affected communities. Yet he commented further that 15,000 people each day die unnecessarily in Africa from disease. His point was not to devalue the Tsunami relief contribution, but rather to highlight the need for ongoing commitment from those who are more fortunate in assisting those most in need.

So much more is needed.

As was seen in the early stages of the relief effort, the citizens of the world are incredibly generous and compassionate and recognise that we all can do something - the sum of all parts can make a difference.

While each of us has different personal circumstances, which define the type of support or involvement we can offer, there are plenty of options. These options can be as simple as a donation or sponsoring involvement, to volunteering internationally or domestically, or making long-term career decisions to be involved in development.

The Australian Government has shown a great lead through activities such as the Australian Youth Ambassadors for Development Program (AYAD) (www.ausaid.gov.au/youtham). The program places young Australians on short- to medium-term assignments through which they have the opportunity to employ their skills, as well as develop a greater understanding of the development needs of our neighbours.

Similarly, organisations such as Australian Volunteers International (www.australianvolunteer.com) support the recruitment, placement, preparation and management of volunteers for the purpose of working towards the sustainable development of communities. (It should be noted here that the Australian government, through AusAID, is a major fund source for these programs).

Of course, volunteering for either short- or long-term assignments is not possible for everyone, which is fine. The astounding statistics relating to the level of donation for the Tsunami relief effort suggests that clearly there are many of us who have done other things, in whatever way we could, to offer support. Similarly, many of us sponsor children through organisations such as Plan (www.plan.org.au) and World Vision (www.worldvision.com.au).

All of this helps.

What about the link between the commercial aspects of the development industry and the benefits it is meant to deliver?

So often in conversations I hear statements such as “consultants are getting paid too much”, “firms are making too much profit” and so on.

Are these statements fair?

First of all I would think it a unique situation in any industry if there were not a difference in earnings between certain individuals and different organisations. So at some point in all industries, “they are making too much” is going to be heard. Just because it is said does not mean it is valid.

Secondly, there are a lot of high quality organisations (and Australia has many) that continue to provide quality solutions to contribute to sustainable development. While we would all certainly hope that the need for development activities would disappear, this is not likely in the near future. So for organisations to continue to provide quality inputs, they also need to be sustainable.

Clearly, what is important is not that an organisation makes a margin on activities to ensure their own sustainability. What is important is value of the involvement, and that value relates to outcomes and impact, not input.

Granted, an interesting debate question could be “at what point does margin go beyond organisational sustainability such that a reduction in margin could still ensure sustainability for the implementing organisation while putting more into the activity/project/community”? But let’s not forget that many of these organisations, and many individuals I have been fortunate enough to get to know, contribute far beyond the technical involvement they are contracted to provide.

In a commercial environment, how can more be done?

Certainly in my experience of working with individuals and organisations, the commitment to do more is alive and well. The critical aspect that must be the focus of implementing

ople each day die unnecessarily in Africa from disease. His point was not to devalue the Tsunami relief contribution, but rather to highlight the need for ongoing commitment from those who are more fortunate in assisting those most in need.

So much more is needed.

As was seen in the early stages of the relief effort, the citizens of the world are incredibly generous and compassionate and recognise that we all can do something - the sum of all parts can make a difference.

While each of us has different personal circumstances, which define the type of support or involvement we can offer, there are plenty of options. These options can be as simple as a donation or sponsoring involvement, to volunteering internationally or domestically, or making long-term career decisions to be involved in development.

The Australian Government has shown a great lead through activities such as the Australian Youth Ambassadors for Development Program (AYAD) (www.ausaid.gov.au/youtham). The program places young Australians on short- to medium-term assignments through which they have the opportunity to employ their skills, as well as develop a greater understanding of the development needs of our neighbours.

Similarly, organisations such as Australian Volunteers International (www.australianvolunteer.com) support the recruitment, placement, preparation and management of volunteers for the purpose of working towards the sustainable development of communities. (It should be noted here that the Australian government, through AusAID, is a major fund source for these programs).

Of course, volunteering for either short- or long-term assignments is not possible for everyone, which is fine. The astounding statistics relating to the level of donation for the Tsunami relief effort suggests that clearly there are many of us who have done other things, in whatever way we could, to offer support. Similarly, many of us sponsor children through organisations such as Plan (www.plan.org.au) and World Vision (www.worldvision.com.au).

All of this helps.

What about the link between the commercial aspects of the development industry and the benefits it is meant to deliver?

So often in conversations I hear statements such as “consultants are getting paid too much”, “firms are making too much profit” and so on.

Are these statements fair?

First of all I would think it a unique situation in any industry if there were not a difference in earnings between certain individuals and different organisations. So at some point in all industries, “they are making too much” is going to be heard. Just because it is said does not mean it is valid.

Secondly, there are a lot of high quality organisations (and Australia has many) that continue to provide quality solutions to contribute to sustainable development. While we would all certainly hope that the need for development activities would disappear, this is not likely in the near future. So for organisations to continue to provide quality inputs, they also need to be sustainable.

Clearly, what is important is not that an organisation makes a margin on activities to ensure their own sustainability. What is important is value of the involvement, and that value relates to outcomes and impact, not input.

Granted, an interesting debate question could be “at what point does margin go beyond organisational sustainability such that a reduction in margin could still ensure sustainability for the implementing organisation while putting more into the activity/project/community”? But let’s not forget that many of these organisations, and many individuals I have been fortunate enough to get to know, contribute far beyond the technical involvement they are contracted to provide.

In a commercial environment, how can more be done?

Certainly in my experience of working with individuals and organisations, the commitment to do more is alive and well. The critical aspect that must be the focus of implementin

gram places young Australians on short- to medium-term assignments through which they have the opportunity to employ their skills, as well as develop a greater understanding of the development needs of our neighbours.

Similarly, organisations such as Australian Volunteers International (www.australianvolunteer.com) support the recruitment, placement, preparation and management of volunteers for the purpose of working towards the sustainable development of communities. (It should be noted here that the Australian government, through AusAID, is a major fund source for these programs).

Of course, volunteering for either short- or long-term assignments is not possible for everyone, which is fine. The astounding statistics relating to the level of donation for the Tsunami relief effort suggests that clearly there are many of us who have done other things, in whatever way we could, to offer support. Similarly, many of us sponsor children through organisations such as Plan (www.plan.org.au) and World Vision (www.worldvision.com.au).

All of this helps.

What about the link between the commercial aspects of the development industry and the benefits it is meant to deliver?

So often in conversations I hear statements such as “consultants are getting paid too much”, “firms are making too much profit” and so on.

Are these statements fair?

First of all I would think it a unique situation in any industry if there were not a difference in earnings between certain individuals and different organisations. So at some point in all industries, “they are making too much” is going to be heard. Just because it is said does not mean it is valid.

Secondly, there are a lot of high quality organisations (and Australia has many) that continue to provide quality solutions to contribute to sustainable development. While we would all certainly hope that the need for development activities would disappear, this is not likely in the near future. So for organisations to continue to provide quality inputs, they also need to be sustainable.

Clearly, what is important is not that an organisation makes a margin on activities to ensure their own sustainability. What is important is value of the involvement, and that value relates to outcomes and impact, not input.

Granted, an interesting debate question could be “at what point does margin go beyond organisational sustainability such that a reduction in margin could still ensure sustainability for the implementing organisation while putting more into the activity/project/community”? But let’s not forget that many of these organisations, and many individuals I have been fortunate enough to get to know, contribute far beyond the technical involvement they are contracted to provide.

In a commercial environment, how can more be done?

Certainly in my experience of working with individuals and organisations, the commitment to do more is alive and well. The critical aspect that must be the focus of implementin

and World Vision (www.worldvision.com.au).

All of this helps.

What about the link between the commercial aspects of the development industry and the benefits it is meant to deliver?

So often in conversations I hear statements such as “consultants are getting paid too much”, “firms are making too much profit” and so on.

Are these statements fair?

First of all I would think it a unique situation in any industry if there were not a difference in earnings between certain individuals and different organisations. So at some point in all industries, “they are making too much” is going to be heard. Just because it is said does not mean it is valid.

Secondly, there are a lot of high quality organisations (and Australia has many) that continue to provide quality solutions to contribute to sustainable development. While we would all certainly hope that the need for development activities would disappear, this is not likely in the near future. So for organisations to continue to provide quality inputs, they also need to be sustainable.

Clearly, what is important is not that an organisation makes a margin on activities to ensure their own sustainability. What is important is value of the involvement, and that value relates to outcomes and impact, not input.

Granted, an interesting debate question could be “at what point does margin go beyond organisational sustainability such that a reduction in margin could still ensure sustainability for the implementing organisation while putting more into the activity/project/community”? But let’s not forget that many of these organisations, and many individuals I have been fortunate enough to get to know, contribute far beyond the technical involvement they are contracted to provide.

In a commercial environment, how can more be done?

Certainly in my experience of working with individuals and organisations, the commitment to do more is alive and well. The critical aspect that must be the focus of implementin

e to provide quality inputs, they also need to be sustainable.

Clearly, what is important is not that an organisation makes a margin on activities to ensure their own sustainability. What is important is value of the involvement, and that value relates to outcomes and impact, not input.

Granted, an interesting debate question could be “at what point does margin go beyond organisational sustainability such that a reduction in margin could still ensure sustainability for the implementing organisation while putting more into the activity/project/community”? But let’s not forget that many of these organisations, and many individuals I have been fortunate enough to get to know, contribute far beyond the technical involvement they are contracted to provide.

In a commercial environment, how can more be done?

Certainly in my experience of working with individuals and organisations, the commitment to do more is alive and well. The critical aspect that must be the focus of implementing activities, is how to create maximum value, improved outcomes and long-term, positive impact from involvement.

Some approaches that have the potential to create improved outcomes that are worth considering include:

• Encouraging ongoing professional development within your organisation [or as an individual]. There are a number of quality programs at some Australian universities specifically targeting development. This professional learning can be equally valuable for field practitioners as well as for business development personnel.

• Encouraging greater involvement from the education community. Australia is blessed with an incredible pool of talent, and this is especially true in the higher education and vocational education and training sectors. However, the nature of many project activities, both in terms of timing and location, at times keep some ideal candidates from participating – this is a shame for all concerned.

• Providing opportunities for teams in the field to keep up to date with new and relevant information. While as professionals we each should accept the responsibility to maintain currency, providing new (including case-study) information to field teams is important. A number of Australia’s quality managing contractors publish excellent newsletters.

• Incorporating new blood into project teams. This is often challenging, as the assessment criteria presented in many tendering activities almost appear to preclude newer professionals from being nominated. Presenting balanced teams remains important, both for the benefit of the activity itself, and for building a broader base of qualified and experienced personnel for future activities.

• Looking for quality local solutions. While a project opportunity may be let by an international organisation, incorporating local individuals, institutions and/or organisations into project teams has the potential to create superior solutions. This approach offers the advantage of providing some economic value, as well as creating a strong platform for sustainability. And let’s not forget that many local organisations are quality project managers in their own right, so being a junior partner to them remains a very worthwhile consideration.

Needless to say, there is still much to be done; however, none of us can control the occurrence of such tragedies as the recent Tsunami. We can, however, continue our individual and collective commitment to contribute and participate at whatever level we are able. And we can ensure our approach to development activities seeks to demonstrate value and focus on outcomes and impact along the path to sustainable community development.

http://www.meldunn.com.au