Management Challenges to NGOs

Management Challenges to NGOs INTRODUCTION Management has been defined by Weirich Koontz as the process of designing and maintaining an environment in which individuals, working together in groups, effectively accomplish selected ends or goals (Weirich Koontz, 2005). They also submitted that management is applicable to all kinds of organizations (public, private, not for profit) and that no matter the organization, managers responsibilities are to plan, organize, staff, lead and control in such a way that surplus is created authors (Werich and Koontz 2005). This surplus could mean profit as in the private sector, or meeting a need or having a positive effect, as in the not for profit sectors. So whether an organization was set up in order to sell cars at a profit e.g. Toyota, or set up to meet the dire needs of the poor e.g. Food Aid, management is important if the goals are to be met. However, while the importance of management in all spheres of human living has been highlighted by several authors, the reality of NGO management differs significantly from what obtains in the Public or the Private sectors. Fundamentally, management or managerialism has not been a major concern for many NGOs until very recently. Why was this so? What are the peculiar features of management in this sector? What are the important management challenges facing NGOs and why are they important? While management challenges abound in all sectors, this essay will explore those peculiar in the management of NGOs in order to answer these questions. It will also critically analyse the case study of Project Literacy, a South African NGO to illustrate how some of these challenges were responded to. The essay will focus more on the most important management challenges, which have been taken to be leadership, funding, accountability, performance monitoring evaluation, and scaling up. There are many different kinds of NGOs, however for the purpose of this essay NGOs will be defined as are organisations that are non-political, non-profit, non-governmental, and accountable to their stakeholders and involved in welfare and socio-economic development of people (Rahman, 2007). WHY NGO MANAGEMENT? Since 1960, the number and size of non-profit organizations involved in international relief and development have grown substantially (Carroll, 1992; Clark, 1991; Fisher, 1998; Fowler, 1998; Edwards, 1999). As the sector has expanded, it has been subject to new competitive pressures. In the past, the word management was considered synonymous with business management, but for NGOs, commercial activities are presumed to be against their non-profit mission and scored negatively. Since the last two decades NGOs themselves have realised the importance of management, and academicians along with NGO executives have also started thinking over the issues of vision, mission, strategic planning, goals, effective coordination and communication, human resource development, motivational strategies, bottom lines and leadership. Today more NGOs compete for increasingly scarce donor resources. Both private and institutional donors demand greater financial accountability and more concrete evidence of program impact. Small, independent NGOs find it hard to keep pace with more efficient, larger ones that take advantage of economies of scale in marketing, operations, and support services. The world of competitive market dynamics presents difficult paradoxes to many who work in the NGO sector. They believe that their organizations strength, fuelled by the staffs primary motivation, is in its determination to help people improve their lives. But in this more competitive NGO world, it is no longer enough to simply have good intentions and a strong value orientation. As noted by Lindenberg (2001), those working in the NGO sector now recognize that NGOs that do not adapt their strategies and promote greater impact, efficiency, and accountability run the risk of bankruptcy as well as irrelevance. Yet they fear that too much attention to market dynamics and private and public sector techniques will destroy their value-based organizational culture. It has also been argued elsewhere that the management system for NGOs is supposed to be different from traditional management thoughts given by Fayols Modern Operational Management, Taylors scientific management and Webers Bureaucratic Model, because of their distinctiveness in vision, mission, organisational culture, goals and values from the other two sectors (Rahman 2003). Stemming from Henri Fayols (1916) definition of management as forecasting, planning, organizing coordinating and control, Rahman (2003) gave a possible definition of NGO management: To manage an NGO is to forecast with shared vision, to plan strategically, to operate professionally and to lead culture friendly. In this definition the word organise used by Fayol has been replaced by operate in order to give a more functional touch, and the word control has been replaced by lead because there is a minimum use of control in NGO management as the shared values of NGOs discourage the concentration of power at the hie rarchical levels and in their functions. Having agreed that management has gained importance for NGOs, what then are the key management challenges for NGOs? Though management challenges abound also in the public and private sectors, the NGO sector has a unique complex nature with its own characteristic management challenges ranging from funding problems to leadership, performance monitoring evaluation, accountability, scaling up, human resources, organization culture, and professionalization. The following sections will however focus on the first five challenges I believe a key in NGO management. FUNDING AND INDEPENDENCE Funding is a very major challenge in NGO management. NGOs require funds to carry out programs and maintain the organization. Unavailability of funds for an NGO could mean a total standstill. NGOs could most time depend on government for funding. However, NGOs that depend largely on public finance run the risk of becoming mere government subsidiaries by implementing activities formerly carried out by their own governments or multilateral institutions (Senillosa, 1998). Government policy may differ from the NGOs objectives and/or the beneficiaries interests, which may lead to a conflict of interest. The availability of substantial government grants may tempt NGOs or the program beneficiaries to become involved in programs inconsistent with their own objectives and capacities. The sheer size of government grants and certain government grant restrictions (specific countries, certain social groups, special forms of assistance) may lead to an imbalance in the NGOs programs. Some NGOs have, more or less, become contractors to governments, particularly if they do not have other programs or funding sources. NGOs may become unwilling to criticize government publicly thus softening their advocacy work and/or human rights campaigns. Also, as government funding may be comparatively easy to obtain, there is the risk of the NGO ignoring or downgrading their traditional sources of private funding and traditional relationships with their constituencies. In addition, as non-governmental providers of development services, NGOs (and their programs) became subject to the availability of government funds (with associated uncertainty about magnitudes and timing), to some degree of governmental control and supervision, and to the rules and procedures that went with the receipt and use of public funds. This tended to impose heavy and sometimes excessive requirements on NGO administrative and audit capacities (Van Der Heijden, 1987). Another problem with funding is the issue of rejection of core funding- a situation whereby donors are only willing to pay project costs. According to Bornstein (2003), NGO managers that are not competent enough to incorporate core costs within project proposals usually have their key functions not being funded. Organizational development, experimental pilot approaches and long-term impact analysis are being abandoned due to lack of funds. Finally, financial uncertainty affects planning for NGOs. It has also forced them to look for more financial sources and adopt private sector-like methods like downsizing. Take for example; shortage of funds is forcing many South African NGOs outside the donor loop to diversify income sources. They are redefining their relationships to the state and the market, taking on government contract work, selling services to the private sector and charging user fees. Some have had to downsize and depend on short-term contract staff while others are experimenting with their legal status and turning into non-profit companies. (Bornstein 2003). LEADERSHIP Leadership in NGOs is a matter of concern considering the highly personalized nature of leadership in the sector. The sector is full of anecdotal stories about the detrimental impact of paternalistic founder leaders, charismatic autocrats, or the guru syndrome (Hailey, 1999). On one hand such leaders demonstrate a drive and commitment, and a remarkable ability to mobilize people and resources. While on the other hand they are criticized for dominating organizations, being unaccountable, and failing to adapt to changing circumstances. Chambers (1997) points out that such NGO leaders can achieve many things through their guts, vision and commitment, but the way they use power is a disability that jeopardizes organizational effectiveness. He argues such charismatic leaders are vulnerable to acquiescence, deference, flattery and placation (Chambers, 1997). They are not easily contradicted or corrected. As a result they actively suffocate promising initiatives that may threaten their powe r base, relationships, or position of patronage. The concept of leadership in NGO could also at times be antithetical to the participatory culture espoused by many NGOs. In a sector that believes itself to be more value driven, participatory, and less managerialist than the for-profit business sector, there is an unwillingness to concede the important influence of any one individual leader. Managers in this new era thus have to be conscious of the greater credence given to ideas of equality and participatory democracy in this sector if they are to succeed (Hailey James 2004). Effective NGO leadership also requires the ability to balance a range of competing pressures from different stakeholders in ways that do not compromise the leaders individual identity and values (Hailey James 2004). The leadership of development NGOs face extraordinary challenges as they work with very limited resources in uncertain and volatile political and economic circumstances to help the most marginalized and disadvantaged members of their communities. Civicus referred to the growing deficit in leadership abilities in NGOs. In particular they pointed to rapid turnover of NGO staff in leadership positions into business and government and the difficulty NGOs have in replacing them (Civicus, 2002). All too often this failure of leadership results in programmatic dysfunctionality and even organizational collapse. MONITORING AND EVALUATING PERFORMANCE NGOs are making significant efforts to show how they are performing, a trend impelled by three factors: stricter requirements attached to official aid; doubts about NGO claims to be more effective than governments; post-Cold War shifts in the role of NGOs, which increase their own needs to know what is being achieved, in order to manage the processes of organisational reorientation and transformation. However, almost without exception, NGOs are finding it very difficult to come up with sound, cost effective methods to show the results of their development activities, or even to demonstrate their effectiveness as organisations (Fowler, 1996). Rick Davies attributed the problems of monitoring and evaluating the performance of NGOs to ambitious expectations, complexity caused by scale (hierarchical differences in goals and expectations at various actors levels), diversity of NGO activities, vague objectives, fault-able measuring tools, and absence of baseline information adequate monit oring systems (Davies, 2000). Unlike commercial companies development NGOs do not have the bottom lines of market feedback, profitability, and returns on financial investment, nor do they receive the judgement of citizens through social unrest or the periodic vote. In other words, consumers and voters are the source of performance standards for business and government- but not for NGOs (Fowler, 1996). According to LeCompte (1986), the difficulty in measuring the development performance of NGOs stems from the basic incompatibility between the assumptions on which the aid system is based and the actual process of socio-economic change. Social economic change is mostly contingent as different from the linear model the aid system presupposes. There are three problems with this approach. Firstly, the right ways of doing things cannot all be sufficiently predicted in advance? Secondly, the assumptions seldom hold. And, thirdly, development in the sense of sustained improvement in the lives and circumstances of people who are poor or marginalised does not take place in a linear way under the influence of one single intervention (LeCompte, 1986). As resources move down the aid chain, several things happen which undermine the project approach, and hence limit the ability simply to tie resources and activities to NGO performance in terms of development? Furthermore, the measures of development are very complex, containing both tangible or physical elements and intangible factors of human and organisational processes and capacities. Also, the possibility of attributing the cause of change to an NGOs work is very restricted. ACCOUNTABILITY Who are NGOs accountable to, for what, and how? Concerns about the role and accountability of NGOs have been voiced from different quarters in recent years. As the World Bank (2005) noted, with growth in the influence of NGOs so also are they attracting greater public scrutiny, prompting calls for greater accountability. Some donors, governments, corporations, and international agencies raise important questions about the effectiveness of NGO work and the legitimacy of their advocacy. Some NGOs have also recognized the need to ensure good practice in the wider voluntary sector. The question of accountability is seen as a bureaucratic hurdle at best, and at worst as a threat to achieving an NGOs aims. Some fear that any toughening of accountability may lead to an overbearing influence from funders and governments, which could then lead to cooptation and a deflection of original purpose (Najam, 2000), or lead to the stymieing of innovation and reducing the diversity of NGOs (Cnaan, 1996). The problem of to whom accountability should be towards also arises many times. Accountability is usually upwards to donors and not to the poor who are the most immediately concerned. NGOs just want to show that money is not being misappropriated and that the approved activities are completed rather than that desirable change was achieved, let alone sustainable. Bendell (2006) however argued that democracy and human rights should firmly be at the centre of the debate about NGO accountability. By democratic accountability he meant that NGOs should be more accountable to those with less power who are affected by the organizations actions or decisions the poor. SCALING UP Much has been said about the need for NGOs to increase the impact they are having rather than applying small piecemeal efforts to large scale problems of poverty. Edwards and Hulme (1992) described strategies for scaling up to meet this demand for more impacts. Some NGOs are contented to focus on a single small community within which they work taking a small is beautiful approach to their work (Lewis 2001). Edwards and Hulme (1992) noted three kinds of scaling up for NGOs as; additive (increase size and coverage of programs), multiplicative (gain more leverage by influencing other development actors, thereby reaching more people), and diffusive (transferring its approaches beyond the organizations immediate sphere of influence). Bangladesh Grameen Bank was able to effectively manage the challenge of the scaling up process. The bank impacted a lot of poor people in the immediate community, but rather than growing any larger as an implementing organization, it encouraged the adaptation of its original microcredit delivery model around the world (Lewis 2001). CASE STUDY: PROJECT LITERACY, SOUTH AFRICA This case study is about Project Literacy, an NGO based in South Africa. The NGO was founded in 1973 by Jenny Neser to help provide an opportunity for non-educated marginalized workers to learn how to read, write and learn other basic life skills thereby tackling the problem of very low educational level in the society (projectliteracy.org.za). Just like most NGOs, it started with the leader identifying a need in the society which neither the government nor the private sector is making provision for. The NGO started out making use of church facilities for the training and getting volunteer teachers to help out with the training. Much of the funds at this initial stage were from the founders purse and little fees affordable by the beneficiaries. Even at this early stage, some other churches too started to copy Project Literacys programme, thereby increasing their impact (multiplicative scaling up). In 1985, the NGO enrolled up to 200 learners in its Adult Basic Education Training (ABE T) programme and had an annual budget of approximately R4000. The first major turnaround however came when the NGO received a donation of $10,000 (worth R33, 000) from USAID. With this, the NGO registered Project Literacy Trust Fund, and with additional fundraising drive, built its first mini office. By 1990, trainings for community based organizations and commercial clients were initiated. This helped in further diversifying the NGOs income source. The program also enjoyed a lot of support from other bodies like the South African Council of Churches and the Independent Development Trusts which both gave funds for the further development of an ABET teacher training programme and development of suitable ABET materials. The NGO was able to build its central office in 1994 through a donation from the Joint Education Trust. However, the direct funding enjoyed by most South African NGOs from international donors soon dried up. With democracy in South Africa in 1994, donors began entering into bilateral agreements with the elected government rather than directly with NGOs, resulting in the folding up of most NGOs. This highlights the centrality of funding to the operations of these NGOs and probably their overdependence on it. Project Literacy however, was able to survive this period by identifying the opportunity in this challenge (Farouk, year unknown). The new Government saw the need to provide sector wide training to meet the education and skill needs of its work force and the unemployed. This was done through the establishment of Sector Education Training Authorities (SETA) e.g. agriculture SETA will attend to needs in agriculture. Project Literacys strategy was to build capacity to tender effectively for government contracts, and the organization moved from direct delivery to service delivery. It al so restructured its financial management structure, retrained staff, and adopted a robust marketing strategy, all of which were not normal practices in the sector. This sort of bold move required strong leadership able to venture into areas not treaded before. By 1999, the NGO had gained national notoriety, with offices in all of South Africas provinces. Also critical to Project Literacys success was its leadership structure. Unlike most other NGOs that depend on the charisma of the leader and his influence or connections, Project Literacy was able to put in place a standard structure with board of trustees and board of directors, with a management team. By 1995, Jenny Neser the founder resigned and a new CEO was appointed. Continuity was thus ensured. Growth however has its challenges, and Project Literacys biggest challenge ever came in 2010 when it lost a major government contract worth R 90m. By this time the organization spent up to R1.2m monthly to maintain its offices nationally. The loss of this contract resulted in the need for the organization to close all its provincial offices and lay off 47 out of its 78 staff members (Independent online, 2010). This highlights the danger of a growth dependent on government funding, and also the danger of additive scaling up. Politics could play a major role in who gets governments contract, and a domineering monopoly might not be the best mode for NGOs to adopt in their bid to scale up. Whether or how Project Life will be able to handle the current management challenge remains a question to be answered, but the lessons learnt from it will be invaluable to every aspiring NGO. In conclusion, this essay has highlighted the importance of management with respect to NGOs and how it differs from management in the public or private sectors. It has also considered the management challenges of leadership, funding, accountability, monitoring evaluation, and scaling up as the most important management challenges facing NGOs. The case study of Project Life has shown that management in the NGO sector could be likened to a rollercoaster ride, monumental success could bear with it seeds for colossal failure. NGOs in the foreseeable future will have to continue to work in a very unpredictable environment, adapting quickly as the need may be in order to survive diverse challenges that will continue to face them.

Fly-By-Night Case Essay

A). When looking at the balance sheet, the first noticeable signal among assets is the rapid increase in accounts receivable in years 12, 13, and 14. It means that there are more products sold in credit than in cash and direct useable funds. Another signal is the sudden increase in inventories in years 12, 13, and 14. The previous three years, inventories slightly decreased. Only from year 11 to year 12 inventories almost triples and keeps increasing significantly the next two years. It shows there is has been a change in the production system making is less efficient. The last signal among assets is the increase in property, plant, and equipment for the years 13 & 14. It is likely that the increase is a result from the less efficient production in year 12. By buying new equipment, they expected to be able to meet the production needs. Then, the first noticeable signal among liabilities and shareholders’ equity is the increase in current portion of long-term debt in years 13 & 14. The acquired extra debt is most likely a result from acquiring property, plant, and equipment. Another signal is the increase in accounts payable for year 13 & 14. It is a result from the extended terms of payments. In year 12, the company had 26 days to pay which increased to 48 days in year 13 and increased even further in year 14 to 84 days. The company keeps buying products but does not have the resources to pay for it and takes longer to pay vendors. Next, when looking at the income statement it is noticeable there is an increase in deprecation which is due to acquiring property, plant, and equipment. There is an increase in interest expense which is due to acquiring more debt. Then in year 14, it results in an operating loss since the expenses are higher than income (positive income tax). Lastly, when looking at the cash flows the most noticeable is the negative change in cash flow for operations. To be able to keep your liquidity high  or ability to pay current expenses, you need to generate cash through net cash flow from operations. Only due to the increase in net cash flow from acquiring property, plant, and equipment the total cash flow decreases. B). Yes, the company can avoid bankruptcy. Only FBN needs to make some strategy and implementation changes. The income statement shows that sales have increased significantly from year 12 to year 14. As the company’s transactions with the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, and the Federal Reserve Bank are covering 60-70% of total revenues, the company has secured income up to years 16-17. The conclusion is that the main concerns of the company are liquidity, costs, and efficiency. The board of directors needs to improve cash levels to lower the liquidity risk. As exhibit 5 shows the current and quick ratio of FBN have decreased over the past years which is the main cause for the high liquidity risk. There a few ways to do this. One option would be to negotiate with customers over the terms of accounts receivable to generate cash faster. Another option would be to issue shares to increase the level of cash. Another issue is the increase of inventory. A high level of inventory increases costs for FBN such as holding costs. The company should have insight in the market conditions so it can produce the needed products efficiently. There needs to be some inventory available for emergency situations or unexpected orders, but the number should be as low as possible. Finally, the total expenses are higher than sales in year 14 which signals that the company either needs to improve efficiency or cut costs. Depreciation costs have increased significantly due to the increased sales and therefore the acquirement of plant, property, and equipment. The ROA has decreased to 0%. In order to get a positive profit margin, costs need to be cut. On the other side, effectiveness and efficiency of the assets need to be improved to generate net sales from the fixed-assets investments.

Rammed Earth

RAMMED EARTH Fionnadh McGonigle 0818555 Contents †¢ History (page 2) †¢ The Use of Rammed Earth within the UK (pages 3 & 4) †¢ Rammed Earth as a Sustainable material, Thermal and Insulation properties (pages 5 & 6 ) †¢ Weather Protection (page 7) †¢ Construction week o Aims (page 8) o Risk Assessment (page 9,10 &11) o Prototype I (pages 12,13 & 14) o Prototype II (page 15) o Earth preparation (pages 15 &16) o Prototype III (pages 17, & 18) o Final Wall (pages 19, 20 & 21) o Revised Risk assessment (page 22) Conclusion (pages 23, 24 & 25) †¢ Bibliography (page 26) Rammed Earth Historical Use The use of earth itself in construction dates back thousands of years, the first recorded city – Jericho was built of earth. The first recorded use of rammed earth was by the Babylonians in 5000BC. Parts of the western portion of the Great Wall of China 300BC are built of rammed earth. Almost every European country has a history of rammed earth construction but is usually a material associated with arid areas. 780-1850 Rammed earth experienced popularity in the USA until mass production of fire bricks and sawed lumber became readily available. These materials were now favoured for being more elegant and modern than using rammed earth – or â€Å"dirt†. However during World War I and the Great depression, supply shortages prompted a return to Rammed Earth. Rammed Earth remained fairly unpopular then until the 1970’s when it began to be rejuvenated by the environmentally conscious.Despite Rammed Earths extensive use throughout history, its use is still not so popular within the UK. Reason for this is largely due to architects/ Builders not knowing enough about the material and sticking to the familiar concrete, timber and brick ways that they know, rammed earth can often also be perceived as having cruder finishing and not in keeping with the clean-sharp lined finished which are so often preferred in today’s archi tecture- Though with the appropriate shuttering clean finishes can be achieved.Building with rammed earth is considered to carry greater risk and uncertainty, the material is yes, more suited to arid climates, but even in arid climates modern method of construction using rammed earth are being continually tried and tested e. g. in Australia. Rammed earth is a perfectly viable and good material to be used within the UK – there is a need to get past the reluctance to use and experiment with it more here – the climate presents a challenge which can be won in innovative ways. [pic] The Use of Rammed Earth within the UKThings which prohibit the wider use of Rammed earth within the UK †¢ The longer than average period needed for construction. †¢ The formwork and Labour costs. †¢ The climates high humidity climate – Moderate external temperatures. †¢ Concerns which are had about the careful detailing which can be required. †¢ Poor thermal resis tance – The need for external walls to require additional insulation. †¢ Not all soil types are appropriate importation of soil for a rammed earth construction will significantly detract from its environmental credentials. The Quality control required for rammed earth constructions is quite high. †¢ Moisture movement can be caused by high clay content. †¢ The UK has few modern examples of rammed earth buildings – relatively untested in this climate – comparative to other countries. †¢ There are currently no UK codes of practice on rammed earth construction. †¢ Adding cement stabilisation can compromise its attributes as a sustainable material. †¢ It can be difficult to find insurance for rammed earth construction. It needs to be kept dry during construction which can result in the need for temporary roof structures. After construction this presents the needs for overhangs or on exposed sights structures to protect from prevailing el ements- can compromise aesthetics. †¢ People hungry construction. †¢ Some more high profile examples of rammed earth building in the UK have experienced problems e. g. the Eden project- over hangs were not big enough and the splash back of rainwater has eroded some of the facade. Reasons why rammed earth would be chosen over other materials It distinct appearance. †¢ Natural and readily available. †¢ It has a low embodied energy. †¢ Rammed earth is hygroscopic – due to high moisture mass – it will regulate humidity. †¢ Post demolition – unstabilised earth is reusable. †¢ Supports sustainable practices by using local soils. †¢ High Thermal mass – though the extent of which has yet to be quantified. †¢ Airtight construction is achievable. †¢ It can be considered a traditional form of construction. †¢ Modern methods have and continue to be widely tried and tested overseas. An integrity of building is exp ressed which is often lacking nowadays. †¢ Expression of cultural conditions. †¢ Acoustic properties- its dry density (pd) is typically 2,100 kg/m3 therefore the weighted sound reduction index (Rw) would be 58. 3dB [1] and thus more than satisfies Building regulations (2000), Doc E Resistance to the Passage of Sound. Other considerations when Using rammed earth Rammed earth is hygroscopic, therefore external cladding systems must be vapour permeable to allow for evaporation.Important for unstabilised walls and less so for stabilised walls where stabilising agents will impair breathing, still it is better to consider vapour permeable solutions for both instances to reduce chances of condensation build up on the inside face of insulation. Water resistance the need to keep the structure dry post construction is done in various ways, large overhangs, plinths upon which the wall is constructed, rendering or cladding to the facade- these options will affect the structures sustai nability, look and thermal mass.A comparison between the calculated U-values for both ‘conventional' masonry and Stabilised rammed Earth wall designs [pic][2] Rammed earth as a sustainable material CO2 Emissions are greatly reduced with the use of rammed earth, as opposed to cement which due to the need for burning limestone produces CO2 contributing about 10% of the global CO2 emissions. Rammed earth taking soil from the site not using a stabiliser is the most sustainable method; however the addition of a cement stabiliser is common practice and considered to reduce considerably the risk and uncertainty, cement is used making up 6-7% of the mix.The embodied energy is low- its inherent recyclability and reduction of CO2 during the structures lifetime, high thermal mass and low operating costs. If the clay can be sourced from site, and is suitable then it eliminates all transportations cost. If the clay is not so suitable, then a stabiliser of cement can be added. If the soil o n site is not at all suited for a rammed earth construction then clay can be transported to site- however both of these options will compromise the environmental integrity of the building, the latter of which doing so quite considerably.Also due to the need for rammed earth to be kept dry at all times during construction there can be a need for temporary roof structures to keep the rain away, this will therefore impact its sustainability. Depending also on what type of shuttering is used can lead to waste, for e. g. timber shutter although can be reused, its reuse is limited as it will become saturated from the moisture in the clay. Thermal Performances, Rammed earth has a high thermal mass – walls will naturally regulate both the internal temperature spaces, and can also regulate the temperatures of external spaces such as courtyards.Energy required to heat and cool a building can be greatly reduced if rammed earth is designed into the heating system, however the UK requires the addition of either internal or external insulation, this aside from affecting the aesthetic of either facade it is fixed to, will compromise the thermal mass of the adjacent space. Structural Performance, whilst the structural strength and stiffness is compromised with increased waster content, if designed correctly and waterproofing measure taken then rammed earth is perfectly capable of acting as a load bearing structure.Rammed earth which is imported in not only contribute to the cost and environmental issue of transportation, it also leaves a scar on the landscape as it is being taken from elsewhere, e. g. a quarry, even if this is later turned into some sort of nature reserve it is still leaving a permanent change to this landscape. Insulation – in the UK there are few examples of rammed earth combining insulation, most contemporary walls are unclad, but there is an increased need for insulation to be used in conjunction with the thermal mass of the walls. |Advanta ges |disadvantages | |External Insulation |Walls protected from weathering |Loss of characteristic appearance | | |Exposed thermal mass internally |Loss of thermal mass externally- which is | | | |sometimes used to regulate temperatures of | | | |spaces such as courtyards | | | | | |Internal Insulation |External appearance is maintained |Loss of available thermal mass. | | | |Internal appearance compromised | [pic][3][pic][4] Weather protection †¢ Weather needs to be drained away from walls †¢ Construction upon raised footings †¢ Avoidance of sites vulnerable to flooding †¢ Protecting wall from rain using adjoining elements e. g. roof overhangs †¢ Allow evaporation of moisture from walls †¢ Onsite which are considerably exposed there is a need to consider rain screen cladding or render. Construction Week AimsThe aim of the work we did within the workshop was to question the building processes as a whole, by means of both small and large scale prototypes , to push the presumed limitations of a material and its formwork, to not just accept, that rules have been predetermined, but to push for innovation. As we studied, the idea of the â€Å"builders yard† allows for just this, meaning a material can be taken and experimented with, in a specific location which possesses the same limiting factors as the actual site e. g. Climate and resources, and test particular means of creating the desired construction before doing so, it is a hub for construction in the area- encouraging risk by means of experimentation rather than out casting it.The advantages of such an idea are that when a material can be experimented with it allows for greater understanding and judgment of its limitation- rather than acceptance of existing limitations, and therefore systems of constructing and spatial relationships can be explored. The community have a personal knowledge of the neighbourhood its character and needs, they are given the power to modify and contribute to it, their personal attachment means, as workmen they have a continued responsibility to the changes which occur with building in the area as well as maintenance of them. The people who work together within the builder’s yard understand and achieve better quality meaningful results; the workmen are uniquely and specifically educated, and the buildings produced are, unlike much of the current construction possess a humane quality, a warm character.The focus on the act of making allows for and evolution and a subsequent greater understanding of everything involved in the construction and about the materials. By making the rammed earth wall within the studio we were pushing the boundaries of predetermined limitations, re-examine the architectural production of rammed earth, and coming up with our own unique response. We explored the possible use of fabric formwork by means of making and testing prototypes on a small scale and then on progressively larger scales we s ee how it uniquely responds to specific methods thus learning learn how the material and structure can better work together, creating a successful wall with fluid innovative shapes, with lower embodied energy.Whilst making our wall every element was specifically made and tested and altered, until the best result were achieved, for example we experimented a lot with the sizes of our buttons, trying to get them to sufficiently restrain the wall –without damaging it when removing them, we were fortunate to stumble upon a size which not only did the job we required but more. This scenario is similar to what happens in the builder’s yard; it is this experimentation –and risk taking which leads to the discovery and sometimes unexpected discovery of innovative solution and inventions. There can be other factors, such as keeping cost down driving the invention of new materials and components. [pic] [pic] [pic] Prototype IAs a group did we met with Roland for a quick bri efing on what direction we should take for our rammed earth wall, he suggested that we should first sit down together and come up with some ideas and sketches to make some prototypes, and that we should also sort out the earth so that it would be ready for when we begin construction. We discussed some ideas about what sort of shaped wall we would like to achieve, including some over ambitious ideas of constructing the walls then flipping it! We agreed we wanted to design a wall to incorporate a curve, a variation in thickness of the wall from bottom to top. We divided into three groups and set about coming up with a design each and building a prototype to text these ideas. Once the earth and fabric had been sorted we each returned to our prototypes, and began to each work out and start making our frame work. Our group decided to make a framework by cutting a .Semi Lunar shape to incorporate some variation in thickness throughout the wall the . Assembling a frame to which we could pi n the fabric to at intervals after each period of . Ramming. The Idea was that one side of the wall would be taut and quite flat and the . other we would periodically place round ties to restrain the wall and create an undulating shape to it. [pic][pic][pic] Basic framework Difficulties with attaching fabric and supporting threads Excessive budging over buttons. Issues highlighted by Prototype 1: †¢ First of all we needed to add further supports as the structure was not as stable as hoped. Tight spaces need to re-think to consider a pneumatic rammer fitting inside the formwork/ framework. †¢ The way the formwork was constructed some of the supports hindered the pinning of the fabric to wood. †¢ The button and tie system we used was not as successful as we hoped- we believed this to be down to the size of the wooden buttons being too small in diameter , which resulted in them become stuck under the overhanging rammed earth and were difficult to remove without causing d amage to the wall. They did not restrain the width of the wall much either, this was also partly due to us leaving the thread too long. Also initially we put on the ties without the wooden disc which resulted in a serious overhang. When we were ramming the earth we did so by hand, using some pieces of wood with flat ends, the highlighted another problem-as due to the way the framework was constructed we had a piece of wood running across the top we made manoeuvring a piece of wood let alone a pneumatic rammer difficult. †¢ Despite having made a definite shape in the base board, to influence the shape of the wall- it in reality had no effect as the fabric took its own shape. †¢ The need to be taught correctly how to mix the earth and test it. †¢ The need to not put too much earth in at each layer as the lower down parts were not getting properly compressed [pic] [pic] Prototype IIThis prototype consisted of 3 wooden sides and a wooden base cut with a curve the fabric w as then pinned to the front and around the curve – the idea being that pinning the fabric to the curved base would create a curved facade. However this prototype was pretty unsuccessful – it suffered structural issues and was not strong enough to withstand the pressure of the rammed earth inside, as it was simply nailed together. The fabric also failed to restrain the form of the wall and budged with little shape. Another issue was that as this prototype required a wooden base beneath it, -not so practical! – In reality this would be likely to make the wall less structurally sound- and would be pretty impossible to remove as a rammed earth wall is extremely heavy. In conclusion this wall was a failure. [pic] SOIL TESTING [pic]Compressing the soil then dropping from arms length away. EARTH PREPARATION Whilst making the first prototype our earth was not of the correct consistency – which resulted in our wall crumbling a bit. We had used the earth which we h ad moved indoor on day one – we added some water to the clay- thinking this would help the earth-stick and compact better. It wasn’t until Rowland came on the 3rd day and was able to tell us immediately, the mistakes we had made, and then showed us the correct for mixing, preparing and testing the earth. We broke down our prototypes returning the earth to the pile and also broke down the previous year’s pillars so the soil could be recycled. [pic] [pic]At first we used the pneumatic rammer to break down these pillars- this was also our first encounter with using the pneumatic rammer, so we learned some general things about using it – safety precautions with turning it on and off, how it must be held, and despite having identified issues of safety in our risk assessment – not many precautions were taken – wearing of safety clothing/boots/goggles. We then began to break it up further using shovels and spades- a lot of dust had been created by this process so we got buckets of water and using bottles threw water over the earth and clay. Once it had all been broken down we began to mix it altogether whilst adding water at the same time. The earth needed to be constantly moved and shovelled – thoroughly so that it’s would be of the same consistency throughout. When the appearance of the mix changed and seemed to be getting close to what we wanted – it looked darker and less dry and dusty, we began to testing it.To test the soil we picked up a handful – squeezed it tightly between both hands, then holding it at arm’s length away from the body- arm held straight – dropped the earth from this height and if it broke into 3 main pieces then we would know that it was ready to ram. It took several testing remixing / adding extra moisture attempts before we did get the earth just right. We also needed to continue testing the earth as over the days it could dry out – so we regularly m ixed the soil and tested it adding water when necessary. PROTOYPE III On the third day, when Rowland came and saw each of our sub groups prototypes. He was able to give us feedback, and give us some explanation to why some things had occurred which we hadn’t expect. In our prototype the spacing of the buttons presenting some issues, as did the several elements of the framework.As a group with the help of Rowland we began work on another prototype, again involving a curve, this time a more defined one with the hope it would have an impact on the shape of the wall. This time however we were to make are formwork as minimal as possible. At first we used just two pieces of wood placed either side of the fabric, and at the other end we used thread to sew it up. Sewing a few inches at a time, to make manoeuvring the pneumatic rammer easier. It was then decided we would place a piece of timber at one end-to achieve a flat surface. We spaced the buttons further apart from each other a nd more evenly spaced. We made planned the wall so it would be 1. 5m long but due to the excess budging which occurred it was approx 1. 2m in length and 1. m high, we positioned 3 rows of 2 button / thread equally spaced. Also when with the previous prototype when we placed the threads simply did so and then proceeded to ram the earth, however this presented a problem when it came to trying to remove then- it was really not possible to remove then without serious damage to the wall occurring. So to avoid this problem, we used some plastic tubing, through which the threads would sit, this would allow use to remove the threads and re use them again within the same wall. When using these we had to be careful whilst ramming and not hit or cause excess pressure on the threads as they could break or bend. [pic][pic][pic][pic]Tubing covering Threads Button buckling under pressure sewing of one side wooden panel at other side When ramming the wall we added a few inches of earth at a time, m aking sure that it was even first then rammed it until it compressed down and then added the next layer- it is quite a long process. It was necessary to ram the edges first keeping the rammer moving at all times moving from the edges inwards, ramming around the thread/tubes until it was at a point where enough earth was above the thread it was safe to ram on top. This prototype was largely successful the few things were again highlighted which we would resolve within the final piece.Again something highlighted by the buttons; was that because of the way we made them- 75mm diameter, bigger than in the first prototype, but they were made using thinner wood than before and due to the pressure of the rammed earth above the buttons- they had actually buckled and bent. This however was a positive thing as they both allowed them to be removed easily-and without damaging the wall, and also created a nice effect on the wall aesthetically. [pic] [pic]Final Wall We had been quite successful in our final prototype so our intention was pretty much scale this up for our final wall. We began by cutting a piece of timber to create a hole sized 1. m by 300mm, to which the fabric which we had cut 4m x 2. 2m was then pinned to the underside of the piece of wood- to keep it in place and restrained during ramming. We used on piece timber 2m x 300mm on one end which we nailed to the fabric and base board at One end, to achieve our flatter surface, and on the other end, we used the method of sewing to create a more curvaceous crafted appearance. The fabric was sewn at intervals, approx 30mm at a time. The Earth which we had prepared as outlined- in Earth preparation, had 2-3 people constantly working to keep its consistency and moisture content even, and at interval shovel it into the structure.Earth was filled and evened out at approx 15mm at a time and then rammed and compressed down. Two people were needed to ram at all times, with 2-3 supporting people, holding material, and als o as we got higher and higher- needed to help hold and steel the pneumatic rammer as it became more and more difficult with height. The process of ramming would begin once the earth had been levelled, begging at edges and moving systematically towards the centre, taking care when approaching the plastic tubes containing the treads and attached to the buttons- directly ramming above them could cause them to bend and distort the shape and support they gave.At 350-400mm vertical spacing’s buttons and threads were attached, piercing the fabric with a knife to create a hole through which the threads within their plastic tubes were placed, to the end of these on the exteriors of the fabric were placed the buttons, which were had cut 75mm in diameter using a piece of thin piece of wood approx 7mm thick. These buttons, along with supporting washers and bolt could later be removed along with the actual thread, and reused. The buttons etc were placed at 300mm horizontal intervals. The Spacing was determined from out prototype as the best spacing to create enough support, least uncontrolled bulging, without over restraining the structure.This added the restraint of the wall, the crafting of curvaceous shapes and ease of removal of components. The making of the wall comprised of adding earth the earth then ramming and repeating this process until 350-400mm height was achieved, then addition of the threads and buttons and repeating again until we reached 2m height. All the while we also were constantly maintaining and controlling the earth consistency by turning, adding moisture and regularly testing as explained earlier. As we reached higher –more people were required to aid the steering and supporting of the pneumatic rammers, but as we had less soil we were able to sacrifice people from this.In reality on a larger scale project this may not be a solution that could work, however as our means of reaching higher and higher was a series of standing on chairs and then tables and even some risque chairs on table, this would definitely not happen on a real site as it would most certainly be violating all sorts of health and safety rules, adequate scaffolding would be used and people the people working on ramming and earth maintenance would remain constant. Once the wall had been rammed until the top and almost all of our soil supply had been used, we were able to take down the fabric formwork, which took comparatively little time to assembly and construction. We unscrewed the buttons removing them which care†¦ just in case†¦. hey had in the same way with the prototype buckled under the strain and had curved round so once removed left a beautiful perfectly ball like shape, and we quite easy to removing, causing no damage to the structure, after that we cut the fabric to remove it, it was very easy on the side with the wood, coming away leaving a very flat surface, on the other side, some more care was taken not to damage the impri nt of the sewing, though more care was taken than was probably needed- the deceptively soft look of the wall made one think it might just crumble away, which was of course not the case, it was more delicate at edges such at the ends that were sewn, but very durable. The only part of the wall which really presented any issues when removing the fabric was the bottom, of course the fabric pinned beneath could not be removed, but as the wall had bulged over the wooden base trapping fabric below, we had to cut around the bulges leaving fragments of the fabric stuck beneath- it was just impossible to remove, but they were not noticeable after edges were trimmed, and neither affected the strength or overall appearance of the wall.The only implication if would have in real building sites would the amount of fabric salvaged from each construction would be less , and whilst it could be reused, the size of fabric over time would shrink and shrink. [pic] The changes to the design we did make fr om our previous prototype were: †¢ We discarded the idea of incorporating the curve as in every attempt so far had been unsuccessful, having no affected on the shape of the wall. So we simply cut a straight rectangular shape into our baseboard. †¢ Rather than having two pieces of wood either side of the fabric then bolted together and the piece of timber then placed inside the piece, we used the one piece of wood at one end and attached the fabric to that. As the wall was going to be longer we would be using 3 button / threads per row and having 4 rows We stuck with the method of sewing up the other side as it had been quite successful in the last wall, however in the final wall throughout the process of ramming it became apparent that it was leaning quite a bit particularly at the top of the wall- as can be seen in the final photograph. [pic]FINAL WALL [pic] Conclusion During the course of construction we learned a lot about building with rammed earth. Before this week I believed that building the wall would be a lot more complicated than it actually is, and I found it fascinating at how much could be achieved with some Fabric, thread, very little wood, some buttons and some earth!It was interesting the affect that the stitching, buttons and wood had on the wall- a very unique finish could be achieved and the structure was so strong and solid despite of it looking much like a giant cushion. The first thing we did in preparation for construction week was our risk assessment- however despite highlighting various precautionary measures we should take – in reality we took almost none. However I think that the risk assessment was still quite accurate in assessing the risk it was wrong not to observe the suggested measures. We did at times wear goggles when the dust simply made it impossible to see what we were doing when ramming, and we did take great care when using the ramming equipment as its use carried the most danger. But in the end I think fashion won out over the use of goggles, masks, boots and gloves.The Buttons which we used were probably the most successful thing that came out of our construction week. Although by complete accident. Because we had used a thinner piece of wood for our buttons in the final prototype when we rammed the wall – the buttons buckled under the pressure and at first we thought that this was another failure, but in the end it turned out this worked in our favour- they were easy to remove without damaging the wall, but also gave a very clean nice rounded indentation- success! [pic][pic] [pic] The Rammed Earth wall and construction methods we used differs from the conventional way in which a rammed earth wall is made by using fabric as formwork as opposed to wood or metal as is the norm.Within UEL the students and staff are pioneering the use of fabric formwork with rammed earth – which has otherwise been left unexplored as a method. In previous year in UEL students and staff h ave also experimented with fabric to make rammed earth columns. The use of fabric in other construction methods such as concrete has been successful, well received and used more and more in various new and innovative ways. The wall which we built was largely a success in all aspects of shape, height, strength and texture. Making it very possible that this project, could lead the way for further use of fabric formwork within the field of rammed earth constructions.It has been proven successful and there is no reason that this method could not be adopted as a viable means of construction in mainstream rammed earth constructions. The Reasons why constructing a rammed earth wall using fabric is better than current method are numerous: ? Sustainability ? The use of low embodied energy rammed in conjunction with fabric resulted in an ultra ecological combo. ? The fabric can be used and reused, as can the buttons and threads ? Beauty ? Sculpted texture created when using fabric can be quit e desirable, and will be depending upon specific fabric choice ? The Positioning of the buttons will also impact upon the finished appearance. The effect achieved with our wall was that of a large cushion As there are fewer limitations on the size of fabric which can be used as there are when using wood – where marks from joints are unavoidable. ? Rapid construction and deconstruction of formwork. ? Fewer things are needed to construct a wall when using fabric, so in principle this method could be used in obscure locations where communications are poor, as transpiration would not pose as much of a problem as it would if using heavy –bulky formwork, provided of course the earth could be found on site. ? Expense –Fabric is less expensive than conventional formwork, fabric formwork is approx 1/25th [5] the cost of dimensional lumber ? Less Weight- weighting approx 1/300th[6] of rigid formwork. There are too, reasons why using fabric formworks may not be favoured. ? Manpower The way in which we constructed our wall required people to do various different things simultaneously, ramming, holding the fabric to keep it tense, shovelling the earth into the wall, turning the soil to maintain moisture consistency. In general at any one time we required 7-8 people so building on a larger scale could present issues of number of people required. Although alternative method of turning the soil or holding the fabric could be adapted. ? Appearance ? The fabric restrained appearance may not be appropriate to the design and desired look. ? Height restrictions ? Whilst there are no specific height restrictions associated with fabric form work- it is an aspect of this construction method- yet to be explored fully- our wall was just less than 2m, what would happen when the height would be increased?Would there be significant implication affecting thickness of the wall? Budging is not as controlled with fabric as with wooden formwork. One of the great things I s aw from our construction week was working together with a set of people for one week for a common goal- we achieved so much, learning from each other sharing ideas and testing them, One can really see how this is in some small way how the builders yard idea must function, and therefore I would believe it to be a really successful idea. If a small group of people in one week can create this unique rammed earth wall- then communities of people working together on projects of greater long-term significance to them i. e. heir homes their neighbourhood the places they will spend their lives, with such vested interested interests, and working on larger scales over longer periods should be creating all sorts of innovative building techniques, materials and components. Bibliography Buildings of Earth and Straw: structural design for Rammed Earth and Straw; Bruce King Introduction to health and safety in Construction; P. Hughes Martin Rauch: Rammed Earth; Kapfinger, Otto Rammed Earth: Design and Construction guidelines; Peter Walker, Rowland Keable Rammed Earth Structures: a code of justice; Julian Keatle The Architect – Builder The rammed earth house / Photographs by Cynthia Wright; David EastonTS Intuition & Process; Peter Salter Essay: Re-viewing the builder’s yard as a place for design and Visualization; Charlie Hailey, Ph. D. www. eartharchitecture. org/ www. earthstructures. co. uk www. greenspec. co. uk www. historicrammedearth. co. uk www. historicrammedearth. wordpress. com www. listserv. repp. org/pipermail/greenbuilding www. rammed-earth. info www. rammedearth. davis. net. au www. terrafirmabuilders. ca ———————– [1] http://www. earthstructures. co. uk/feature_sra_amended. pdf [2] http://www. earthstructures. co. uk/feature_sra_amended. pdf [3] www. greenspec. co. uk [4] www. greenspec. co. uk [5] www. fab-form. com [6] www. fab-form. com

Nuclear Fission Versus Nuclear Fusion

Nuclear fission and nuclear fusion both are nuclear phenomena that release large amounts  of energy, but they are different processes which yield different products. Learn what nuclear fission and nuclear fusion are and how you can tell them apart. Nuclear Fission Nuclear fission takes place when an  atoms nucleus splits into two or more smaller nuclei. These smaller nuclei are called fission products. Particles (e.g., neutrons, photons, alpha particles) usually are released, too. This is  an exothermic process releasing the kinetic energy of the fission products and energy in the form of gamma radiation. The reason energy is released is because the fission products are more stable (less energetic) than the parent nucleus. Fission may be considered a form of element transmutation since changing the number of protons of an element essentially changes the element from one into another. Nuclear fission may occur naturally, as in the decay of radioactive isotopes, or it can be forced to occur in a reactor or weapon. Nuclear Fission Example: 23592U 10n → 9038Sr 14354Xe 310n Nuclear Fusion Nuclear fusion is a process in which atomic nuclei are fused together to form heavier nuclei. Extremely high temperatures (on the order of 1.5 x 107 °C) can force nuclei together so the strong nuclear force can bond them. Large amounts of energy are released when fusion occurs. It may seem counterintuitive that energy is released both when atoms split and when they merge. The reason energy is released from fusion is that the two atoms have more energy than a single atom. A lot of energy is required to force protons close enough together to overcome the repulsion between them, but at some point, the strong force that binds them overcomes the electrical repulsion. When the nuclei are merged, the excess energy is released. Like fission, nuclear fusion can also transmute one element into another. For example, hydrogen nuclei fuse in stars to form the element helium. Fusion is also used to force together atomic nuclei to form the newest elements on the periodic table. While fusion occurs in nature, its in stars, not on Earth. Fusion on Earth only occurs in labs and weapons. Nuclear Fusion Examples The reactions which take place in the sun provide an example of nuclear fusion: 11H 21H → 32He 32He 32He → 42He 211H 11H 11H → 21H 01ÃŽ ² Distinguishing Between Fission and Fusion Both fission and fusion release enormous amounts of energy. Both fission and fusion reactions can occur  in nuclear bombs. So, how can you tell fission and fusion apart? Fission breaks atomic nuclei into smaller pieces. The starting elements have a higher atomic number than that of the fission products. For example, uranium can fission to yield strontium and krypton.Fusion joins atomic nuclei together. The element formed has more neutrons or more protons than that of the starting material. For example, hydrogen and hydrogen can fuse to form helium.Fission occurs naturally on Earth. An example is the spontaneous fission of uranium, which only happens if enough uranium is present in a small enough volume (rarely). Fusion, on the other hand, does not occur naturally on Earth. Fusion occurs in stars.