Write for a Specific Decision and Reader
A technical advice note should help an authorized person understand a problem, compare feasible options and see what must be confirmed. It does not turn the writer into the engineer, clinician, legal adviser or decision owner. Begin with the question, the intended reader and the decision the note can actually support.
The 2018 Sphere Handbook and its 2025 contextualisation guide support reading humanitarian service references in context. Their general framework does not establish Riverbend's site conditions. The UK Consultancy Playbook, version 1.1, printed pages 20-22 and 34-35, helps illustrate defining a specialist assignment and client responsibilities within its UK public-sector scope. It does not supply a universal NGO advice-note format. The method below is an original writing aid.
Build the Note in This Order
- State the decision and scope. Name the problem, location, people or service concerned, timeframe, reader and requested decision. Separate a request to investigate from a request to approve implementation.
- Show the evidence. Distinguish observations, reported concerns, source guidance, assumptions and missing information. Keep dates and locators. Explain whether a source supports a general approach or the specific claim being made.
- Compare actual options. Include the relevant alternative, such as repairing an existing arrangement, using an interim service, seeking more information or retaining a current safe arrangement pending review. Do not force three options when only two are meaningful.
- Explain feasibility and consequences. Record access, operating responsibility, time, skills, resources, maintenance, inclusion and other relevant constraints. Mark estimates and unknowns clearly. Do not create a precise score from unsupported inputs.
- Make a bounded recommendation. Explain the reason, its conditions and the consequences of waiting. If evidence is insufficient, recommend the next investigation or decision process rather than pretending to select a design.
- Name checks, owners and review triggers. Identify the qualified interpretation or authorization still needed, what would change the recommendation and how uncertainty reaches the decision-maker.
Complete Fictional Advice Note
All documents, organizations and conditions below are invented. This note teaches reasoning and communication; it is not operational WASH advice.
To: Riverbend service coordinator and qualified WASH lead.
Decision requested: Agree the scope and owner of a service review before committing to a waterpoint intervention. Implementation approval is outside this note.
Problem: Following flooding, the community liaison has received reports that some households cannot use the existing waterpoint at suitable times. The report log is dated October 24. It identifies access concerns but is not a population estimate or technical inspection.
Evidence and gaps: The maintenance register M1 records an unresolved fault report, not a confirmed diagnosis. Local planning card R1 contains a decontextualized waterpoint ratio. Current service availability, water quality, user coverage, accessibility, repair scope and costs have not been supplied. These gaps prevent a defensible equipment specification.
| Option | Reason to Examine It | Evidence and Limits |
|---|---|---|
| Investigate repair of the existing service | Could address the reported fault using an existing asset and management arrangement. | A qualified inspection must establish cause, repair feasibility, safety and ongoing ownership. No repair cost or completion time is confirmed. |
| Examine an interim delivery arrangement | Could provide another route to service while a longer solution is assessed. | Source, quality, delivery, access, storage, costs and responsible operation need assessment. Availability is not established. |
| Install a new waterpoint | Might address a demonstrated service gap if a suitable source and sustainable arrangement are established. | Requires site, source, access, technical, operating and authorization evidence. R1's ratio alone is insufficient. |
Recommendation: Commission a bounded review of the actual service problem and the first two options before treating a new installation as the chosen solution. The service coordinator and qualified WASH lead should agree the evidence, community engagement and decision timetable. Existing reported urgent needs must be escalated through the authorized response arrangements while the review proceeds; this note does not authorize an unassessed alternative or indefinite delay.
Specific handoffs: The service owner supplies current operation and maintenance information. The community liaison works through appropriate engagement arrangements to understand differences in access, without collecting unnecessary personal details. The WASH lead defines technical checks and the basis for comparing options. Finance and procurement confirm resources and the applicable approval process. The authorized service decision-maker records the actual decision and conditions.
Revisit when: New inspection or service evidence arrives, access changes, a relevant public-health concern is reported through the appropriate route, or the agreed decision deadline is reached. The responsible roles determine the response to those developments.
Check the Recommendation Against the Evidence
The note recommends investigation because the cause and feasibility are unresolved. It does not claim that repair is cheapest, interim delivery is safe or installation is necessary. Those could become conclusions only after appropriate evidence and review. A recommendation can be useful without prematurely choosing a technology.
If a later inspection supplies a repair option, revise the comparison with its exact findings and qualifications. Keep estimates distinct from agreed prices and proposed actions distinct from authorized work. Do not preserve the earlier preferred option simply to make the draft look consistent.
Continue with reconciling technical guidance when sources appear inconsistent, or the checklist learning exercise to practice the boundary between routine checking and technical judgment.