A problem-focused and action-oriented workshop bringing scientific, social, institutional and diplomatic perspectives together to develop a defensible pathway for action.
This is a problem-focused and action-oriented workshop, not a sequence of presentations. The one-day workshop design uses six components and should produce a defensible pathway plus a small set of actions to pursue and learn from before the January 2027 follow-up.
Diagnosis → Conditions, Capacity & Constraints → Decision Pathway → Tools & Processes → Metrics → Actionability
Supported by defensible evidence and reasoning.
Responsive to relevant interests and more likely to gain agreement.
Politically, institutionally, technically and practically possible.
| Component | Core question | Workshop output |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Diagnosis of the Problem Space | What problem are we actually trying to solve, and why does it persist? | Clear problem statement |
| 2. Conditions, Capacity & Constraints | What enables, limits, or shapes possible action? | Key conditions, capacities, and constraints |
| 3. Decision Pathway | Given those realities, what should Bangladesh consider doing? | One or more defensible pathways |
| 4. Tools & Processes | What tools or processes could make the pathway work? | 1-2 appropriate tools/processes |
| 5. Metrics | How would we know whether we are making progress? | Small set of measurable indicators |
| 6. Actionability | What can realistically be done next, by whom, and what should we learn from doing it? | 90-day actions + responsibility/facilitation + observable progress + learning |
27 August 2026 · BUET, Dhaka
Welcome address by CERM Director (5 min)
Overview (30 min):Dr. Islam, Tufts University. Provide an overview of engineering diplomacy framework. Focus on decision-relevant scientific, social, political, uncertainty, and ambiguity context.
Keynoteby Dr. Abdul Hasib Chowdhury, Professor, EEE, BUET
Guiding question: How can regional energy cooperation and diplomacy strengthen Bangladesh’s energy security and environmental sustainability?
Expected output: A clear problem statement for use in subsequent sessions.
Structured Q&A (20 min): Facilitated by Dr. Monjur Morshed and Dr. Aman Uddin; clarify implications for the decision space with a focus on actionability.
Small-group work. No presentations. Each group is comprised of eight members (ideally, two from each of the stakeholder groups: knowledge community, decision-making community, resource community, and impacted community), a facilitator and a transcriber. Each group will prepare a summary of their conversation. This summary will be presented by the group facilitator at the beginning of Session 4.
Task 3a (25 min): What is known and uncertain? What is contested? What appears economically and politically feasible?
Task 3b (25 min): What capacities or enabling conditions exist? What constraints matter most? What helps explain why the problem persists?
Expected output: A short list of key conditions, capacities, constraints, and stakeholder considerations that can facilitate or hinder actionability of the decision space.
Each group gives a 5-minute report from Session 3, then works on Tasks 4a-4c.
Small-group work. No presentations.
Task 4a - Decision Pathway (20 min)
Question: Given the conditions and constraints, what should be pursued now?
Do not pre-judge the answer. When comparing pathways, use three tests: Credible (supported by evidence and reasoning), Acceptable (responsive to relevant interests), and Feasible (politically, institutionally, technically, and practically possible).
Expected output: One or two tools/processes to explore, use, or test before January 2027.
Task 4c - Metrics (20 min)
Identify a small number of measurables, trackable indicators linked directly to the proposed pathway and expected outcomes.
Illustrative metrics: Reliability, equity, political feasibility, environmental health, and near-term progress.
Expected output:A small set of measurable indicators showing whether the pathway is moving in a desirable direction.
Each group gives a 5-minute report summarizing findings from Tasks 3 and 4:
Our proposed pathway
Why we think it is defensible
The main obstacle/constraint
Three actions over the next 90 days (late November 2026)
What we need to learn before January 2027?
The facilitator then works with the audience to synthesize the workshop findings and next steps that are credible, acceptable, and feasible.
A. Where do the groups agree?
What pathway, constraints, tools, or actions have broad support?
B. Where do they genuinely disagree?
What important alternatives or assumptions remain unresolved?
C. What will we carry forward?
Agree on no more than three actions, who needs to lead/facilitate them, and what evidence or learning should be available by January 2027.
Expected output:An actionable decision-pathway summary with no more than three near-term actions that are credible, acceptable, and feasible. This will be used as a summary to be presented at the Gala Dinner on August 27 evening.
The January workshop should continue the process, not repeat the August 2026 discussion.
Concise synthesis report of thematic area discussions and final findings.
Concise reports prepared for wider dissemination to media, decision-making and resource communities.
Press release followed by an op-ed from resource persons, panel members and engaged participants.