HADR stakeholder analysis: rights, roles, work packages and CLO–PLO evidence

Start with affected people's lives and rights

This lesson and its tables are an educational proposal dated 16 October 2026, not operational orders, a statutory authority chart or an accredited programme. Approved PLOs for this proposed programme have not yet been defined; six proposed PLOs make alignment reviewable. Every CPX location, quantity, time and message is fictional.

CHS 2024 emphasizes people's primary role, rights, dignity and more equitable relationships. Use this frame to ask who is affected, whose voice is missing and who can verify that assistance is usable.

Project proposal: begin with people's problems—an unreadable warning, inaccessible water point or referral without a receiver—then identify task owners and partners. Low institutional power does not reduce rights or urgency.

Analyze 12 groups and differences within them

The IFRC/ICRC CEA guide supports assessment and feedback involving diverse groups, with appropriate sensitive-case handling and referral. A single leader or representative should not be treated as every voice.

Original exercise: use the 12-group register below as a starting point and add missing groups for the fictional incident. Record impacts, needs, capabilities, decision influence, authority to verify, trust, channels and absent voices. Distinguish evidence from team assumptions.

If using a power–interest matrix, use it only to plan engagement; add need, risk and access barriers. For example, a language-minority household may have no allocation power yet urgent needs and a right to suitable communication; low power is not a reason to put it last.

Add six questions: influence—how can this actor affect decisions/resources; interest—which outcomes matter; legitimacy—what rights, duties or verified representation establish involvement; urgency—what happens if action waits; dependency—whose information/resources are required; barriers—who cannot speak or access services. Justify each answer; do not collapse risk into a single score.

Separate liaison, decision owner and task recipient

DDPM's 2021–2027 plan, Figure 3-2 on p.43, maps national, provincial, district and local mechanisms with distinct Bangkok arrangements. Page 124 covers situation information, options, coordination and follow-up in incident support. This establishes context, not who approves every task in a real incident.

A1 exercise: distinguish proposer, decision owner, implementer/recipient, information provider and release reviewer, with authority document, geographic/time scope, reviewer and verified/pending status. Unknown means pending; invent no order number or authority holder.

The controller assigns a simulated approver and each agency role acknowledges its task. An EOC label, expertise, funding or assets do not automatically confer authority over others. If a request exceeds scope, pause that simulated assignment, record the gap and refer to the designated verification role.

WP01–02: from warnings to verifiable needs

UNDRR's warning-system definition connects risk knowledge, monitoring, communication and response preparedness; the CEA guide supports hearing needs and context before designing assistance.

W1/N1 exercise: a fictional 08:00 notice says route EX-B awaits inspection. Do not turn that into ‘safe’ or ‘evacuate immediately’ without evidence. Draft knowns/unknowns, ask a different-language recipient role to explain back, and record unreached groups and follow-up owners.

Shelter EX-A reports a need for 60 household kits and EX-B for 40. Kits are not people. Ask what each kit covers, who has not been assessed and whether a new report overlaps an old one. Record time, provenance and unanswered allocation questions.

WP03–04: turn information into owned SAR/health requests

Use the DDPM information/follow-up frame to design C1 without reproducing an official form: situation, needs, resources, uncertainty, decisions and open tasks. Keep potentially harmful detail separate from public messages.

At 08:15 an inject reports 55 kits for EX-B while the table holds 40. Preserve both timed reports and ask whether 55 replaces or adds to 40. Do not total 95 or select a convenient figure without checking. The data owner marks it unverified and assigns verification.

One fictional health-referral request arrives without clinical details. R1 records a receiving pathway to verify and task status. Learners neither diagnose nor triage nor send volunteers into hazards. An unanswered referral remains open even after a message was sent.

WP05–06: connect services, resources and actual recipients

Project proposal: involve service users in S1 checks because delivery to a warehouse does not establish access to suitable water, food or shelter. Compare mobility, language, privacy and usable-food constraints. Specialists must verify real technical requirements; this lesson invents no standard ratios.

EX-W starts with 80 kits and no dispatches. Initially verified need is 100, a stock shortfall of 20. But reserving 40 without dispatch does not make undelivered need identical to stock shortfall. L1 separates available, reserved, dispatched and received states.

Propose at least two options, naming early recipients, waiting groups, route conditions, specific needs, simulated approver and review point. Ease of transport does not represent all need. Destination confirmation of quantity and units is needed to record receipt.

Fictional conflict: a funder wants every kit sent to EX-A because photographs are easier, while EX-B has an access complaint. Separate donor preference from need, check whether the condition is acceptable, and propose partial delivery with a B access plan or unconditional resources. Refer to the simulated approver and record who waits; do not expose the complainant to win the argument.

WP07: volunteer tasks and safe feedback

CEA pp.107–109 connect feedback design with diverse groups, action on feedback and referrals beyond an organization's scope, separating sensitive from ordinary information.

At 08:25 a shelter-user role reports an inaccessible distribution point and a sensitive complaint with no disclosed details. Listen without soliciting personal details in the plenary. F1 records only status and owner, verifies the simulated referral route and explains follow-up without promising outcomes beyond authority.

V1 records task, capability to verify, supervisor, help channel, stop boundary and read-back. Large volunteer numbers do not prove hazardous-task capability. The observer records when the team hears challenge, changes work and responds.

WP08: coordinate assistance and recovery handover

SASOP V4 paragraphs 21–23 distinguish affected-party requests, assistance offers and AHA Centre facilitation, including consent for ASEAN ERAT. An offer therefore does not itself authorize deployment.

At 08:35 an inject offers 30 more kits from an international counterpart, without acceptance or arrival time. I1 records ‘offer/pending review’; exclude it from available stock. Prepare gaps and conditions for the simulated national-channel role; contact no real agency.

Sendai supplies a preparedness and risk-reducing recovery frame. H1 therefore hands over unfinished service, livelihood and learning-continuity work with an owner, review date and affected-person confirmation. Ending a CPX does not demonstrate community recovery.

From stakeholder needs to proposed PLOs and CLOs

AUN-QA V4 requirements 1.1–1.5, 2.2–2.4 and 4.5 connect outcomes, stakeholder needs, curriculum design and assessment evidence. Use this as an alignment frame, not endorsement of this lesson or programme.

PLO-P1–PLO-P6 below are an authorized draft, not university-approved PLOs. Proposed cycle: appropriately consult affected people, agencies, learners and graduate users → translate needs into capabilities → programme-owner PLO review → CLO/activity/evidence design → pilot and revise. No consultation is claimed to have already occurred.

STK-K/S/E/C are lesson CLOs. The mapping shows which artifacts contribute to which PLOs; it does not establish programme-wide attainment. Programme conclusions require a planned body of evidence across courses and occasions, calibrated assessors and decisions by responsible programme owners.

Use Bloom's two dimensions with actual tasks

Krathwohl (2002) describes separate cognitive-process and knowledge dimensions: Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, Create; and factual, conceptual, procedural, metacognitive knowledge. The CLO table below classifies original project tasks rather than reproducing the article's examples.

Proposed scaffold: check recall and explanation of role/authority distinctions → apply recording procedures and analyze conflicting counts → evaluate two options against criteria → design a handoff plan after conditions change → revisit one's assumptions. Create requires integrating constraints into a reasoned new plan; filling template fields is insufficient.

The five-item quiz samples understanding and application; it cannot fully assess Create. E combines reasoning with protection behaviour; C uses observed listening, correction and handover in the exercise. Cognitive Bloom is not an affective-domain taxonomy, and one score establishes no lasting character trait.

120-minute CPX: conditions, injects and artifacts

Original project exercise; 120 classroom minutes are not response standards: 0–15 review/roles, 15–35 mapping/A1, 35–70 inject play using simulated time, 70–90 options/handoff design, 90–105 presentation/read-back, 105–120 reflection and quiz.

Four to six roles: liaison, information lead, community representative, service/logistics recipient, simulated approver and observer. Disclose combined-role limitations. Paper and digital artifacts are equivalent. Use no real personal data or real agency requests; pause and remove any real data introduced.

Controller clarification: at 08:30, B55 replaces B40 rather than adding to it. Total need becomes 115 and shortfall 35 while available stock remains 80. The 08:35 offer of 30 adds no stock. There is no single allocation answer; all options must check quantities, waiting groups, authority and route conditions. Handover is at 09:00; invent no deliveries.

Assess artifacts, behaviour and evidence limits

Project assessment proposal: rate K/S/E/C separately with artifact codes, times and observations. ‘Proficient’ means evidence in this exercise only, not operational certification. When there was no observation opportunity, record ‘not yet evidenced’ and arrange another, rather than infer poor character.

Before use, two assessors discuss the same sample, record disagreement and refine descriptors. Let learners identify missed evidence and revise. Changes to criteria after seeing work must be transparent and affected ratings revisited. The rubric is not claimed to be validated.

Each learner explains their own decisions and reasoning even with a team submission. Solo learners may complete two role-switched rounds, disclosing the lack of another person's reception evidence or peer observation. End with one improvement, an owner, verification method and retest date.