75 YEARS FROM HARM TO HOME

Identify: Criteria for the IAWG Technologies Working Group to use in selecting priority RH service delivery gaps for technology fixes Characteristics that make a technology appropriate for use in a crisis setting Identify ways to facilitate field input into Working Group deliberations

1. For some identified RH gaps, technology may not be the answer 2. For some identified gaps, solutions may already exist, but are not widely utilized 3. For others, technology exists but may not be workable in a crisis setting 4. For still others, new technology may need to be developed

What makes technology appropriate for crisis settings? How should the IAWG Working Group decide which gaps to address? How can we garner input from frontline field workers into this process?

For example: Portability Cost Simplicity of use …

Should we focus on increasing use of existing technology? Should we focus on tailoring current technology so it can work better in crisis settings? Should we focus on stimulating the development of new technological fixes for identified gaps?

What process should the Working Group follow to decide the way forward? Should we do the 3 technology fixes sequentially over time, starting with the “easy wins”, e.g., promote greater use of existing technologies? How can we garner input from frontline field workers into this discussion?

6 Groups, 2 per question Brainstorm ways to answer the questions 20 min separately Then combine groups working on the same question for 30 min together to consolidate Prepare flipchart, list participants of both groups, list consolidated priority answers to the question 5 min per question report-back Output: collated/refined lists.