1. Did the way you think about your innovation change?

Yes, definitely. The main shift was moving from seeing MISBAR as simply a biological testing tool to understanding it as an integrated geospatial surveillance and digital governance system designed to reduce the early-warning window from days to less than six hours, helping interrupt the chain of waterborne disease transmission at the source before it spreads within the community.

2. Did the training help you understand the problem or the needs of your target group differently? How?

Yes. We focused more clearly on the actual user in the field rather than the assumed user. We gained a better understanding of the needs of health volunteers and well operators in remote areas and camps. They need a quick, visual tool that can provide a clear indication of water safety without creating tension with camp residents, as well as a simple offline way to communicate the area’s needs to organizations so that chlorine supplies and rapid interventions can be provided when needed.

3. Which tool or exercise did you find most useful, and do you plan to apply it?

The Adopt vs. Invent Matrix was the most useful and strategic exercise for us. Based on it, we decided to adopt the established biological concept of rapid chromatographic testing, while developing and innovating a fully offline digital mobile application with GPS functionality to adapt the solution to the Yemeni context and connectivity challenges.

4. Did the training reveal any assumptions or aspects that require further testing or evidence?

Yes. The training highlighted two critical assumptions that we need to validate:

• Thermal chemical stability: The extent to which the biological reagents maintain their effectiveness under heat stress and poor storage conditions during field deployment in the summer.

• Official reliability: The need to conduct a double-blind comparative test with central laboratories to demonstrate an accuracy rate of at least 90% and build the confidence of government authorities and humanitarian organizations.

5. What does your innovation need to move to the next stage?

In addition to further technical development, the innovation requires:

• Partnerships and field coordination: Collaboration with implementing partners through the WASH Cluster to obtain the necessary movement permissions and conduct pilot testing in camps.

• Institutional validation: Formal technical validation by the National Center for Public Health Laboratories.

• Initial support: Funding to cover the costs of secure cloud servers required to develop the digital dashboard.

6. What step do you plan to take differently regarding your innovation after completing the training?

Rather than focusing solely on seeking humanitarian grants, we are now moving forward with a 90-day plan to institutionalize the innovation and integrate it into the operational protocols of Rapid Response Teams (RRTs) and health offices. We also plan to apply a flexible sustainability model based on supplying testing materials and providing organizations with real-time epidemiological mapping data.

1. Did the way you think about your innovation change after the training?

Yes, my perspective on the project changed. I was previously more focused on the technical and operational aspects of collecting and recycling plastic. Now, I am focusing more on how to make the solution community-centred and responsive to people’s needs and everyday behaviours in rural areas.

2. Did the training help you understand the problem or the needs of your target group differently? How?

Absolutely. The training helped me realize that the problem in rural communities is not simply a lack of awareness or the absence of recycling systems. A bigger challenge is the lack of incentives and convenient ways for people to participate. People need a solution that fits their everyday reality and provides a tangible benefit that encourages them to take part in collecting and sorting plastic.

3. Which tool or exercise did you find most useful, and do you plan to apply it to your innovation?

The most useful exercise was understanding how rural households deal with their waste and identifying the challenges that lead them to dispose of or burn plastic instead of collecting it. I plan to apply this understanding to better shape the solution around their actual practices and needs.

4. Did the training reveal any assumptions or aspects of your innovation that require further testing or evidence?

Yes. I had assumed that people, particularly women, would readily engage in collecting plastic once we provided them with a suitable method. However, I realized that this is an assumption that needs to be tested in the field first. I need to understand what the actual incentives are that would encourage people to continue participating, as well as test how transportation and collection could work in rural areas.

5. In your view, what does your innovation need, beyond developing the solution itself, to move to the next stage?

It needs relationship-building and coordination with recycling organizations and local communities, as well as funding, technical support, and advisory assistance.

6. After completing the training, what is one step you plan to take differently regarding your innovation?

I plan to start developing an application and integrate artificial intelligence into the solution. I also plan to coordinate with donor organizations, drawing on my work as a member of the Global Advisory Group on Internal Displacement under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), to support the adoption of projects that can help scale my innovation across Yemen.

1. Did the way you think about your innovation change after the training?

Yes, definitely. Before the training, I was more focused on the technical aspects and viewed the project from a relatively narrow perspective, often defending the idea itself. After the training, I started looking at it from a broader perspective, considering factors such as the target group, potential risks and challenges, and how the solution could be implemented. I also became more convinced that the strongest ideas are those that are tested and refined based on the results.

2. Did the training help you understand the problem or the needs of your target group differently?

Yes. I realized that I had not sufficiently considered how the target group interacts with technology. Some of the areas targeted by the project may have limited internet access, or technology may not be equally accessible to everyone. This led me to explore alternative ways of delivering the warning that are better suited to the context of these areas.

3. Which tool or exercise did you find most useful, and do you plan to apply it to your innovation?

What I found most useful was learning to think from the perspective of the target group and explore their needs in a practical way. I plan to apply this through field research, so that the development of the system is based on real needs rather than assumptions alone.

4. Did the training reveal any assumptions or aspects of your innovation that require further testing or evidence?

Yes. I had already conducted tests using historical data, but the training made me more aware of the importance of calibration and field testing. This will help me understand how the system performs in real-world conditions and increase its reliability before expanding its application.

5. What does your innovation need, beyond developing the solution itself, to move to the next stage?

In addition to further developing the solution itself, the project needs field testing and calibration, as well as the right partnerships to support the implementation of the solution in practice.

6. What is one step you plan to take differently after the training?

I will continue developing the technical aspects, then move on to field testing and calibration. I will use the actual results to improve and refine the system as it moves toward the next stage.