Director, Energy Research and Development

LIKELY QUESTIONS

- How would you develop a five-year strategy for the Energy Research and Development Directorate that aligns with NUPEA's Strategic Plan, Kenya's energy priorities and international nuclear obligations?
- What is your experience leading complex energy, nuclear, research or technology-development programmes from concept through implementation and evaluation?
- How would you provide strategic oversight of the Nuclear Research Reactor Programme across planning, design, construction, commissioning, operation, utilization and eventual decommissioning?
- Which national and international standards, safeguards, safety, security and regulatory requirements would you prioritize for a nuclear research reactor programme in Kenya?
- How have you translated technical research findings into clear, evidence-based policy advice for boards, senior government officials or non-technical decision-makers?
- How would you establish a robust research governance, quality assurance and knowledge-management system for the Directorate?
- What partnership and resource-mobilization strategy would you use to engage universities, industry, development partners, government institutions and international organizations such as the IAEA?
- How would you prioritize competing research investments across nuclear applications, emerging energy technologies, innovation initiatives and national energy-planning needs?

BEHAVIOURAL QUESTIONS

- Tell us about a time you led a high-stakes, technically complex programme involving multiple institutions with competing priorities.
Model approach: Situation: Briefly describe the programme, its national importance, stakeholders and complexity. Task: State your accountability for delivery, alignment and governance. Action: Explain how you established a steering structure, clarified decision rights, built a shared roadmap, managed risks and resolved conflicts using evidence. Result: Quantify delivery outcomes, stakeholder alignment, funding secured, milestones achieved and lessons institutionalized.

- Describe a time you gave difficult technical advice to senior leadership or government that changed a major decision.
Model approach: Situation: Set out the policy, investment or regulatory decision and the risks of proceeding without sound evidence. Task: Explain your responsibility to provide independent, credible advice. Action: Describe how you analyzed evidence, tested assumptions, presented options and trade-offs in accessible language, and managed disagreement professionally. Result: State the decision made, risk avoided or value created, and how trust in your advice was strengthened.

- Give an example of a time you built a strategic partnership that delivered research, innovation or infrastructure outcomes.
Model approach: Situation: Identify the institutional gap or opportunity, such as funding, expertise, equipment, data or training capacity. Task: Explain the partnership objective and your role in securing alignment. Action: Describe stakeholder mapping, value proposition, negotiation of roles, governance arrangements, funding or cooperation agreements, and performance monitoring. Result: Highlight measurable outputs such as funding, facilities, research outputs, skills transfer, technology deployment or long-term collaboration.

- Tell us about a time you improved quality, compliance or risk management in a technical or research organization.
Model approach: Situation: Describe the compliance, quality, safety or delivery weakness and its potential consequences. Task: State your mandate to improve the system while maintaining operational ownership. Action: Explain how you conducted a gap assessment, benchmarked against standards, introduced procedures and controls, trained staff, audited performance and managed corrective actions. Result: Show measurable improvements in audit findings, compliance, quality of outputs, turnaround time, safety culture or stakeholder confidence.

SMART QUESTIONS TO ASK

- What are NUPEA's most important deliverables for the Energy Research and Development Directorate in the first 12 to 24 months, and how will success for this Director be measured?
- What is the current maturity of the Nuclear Research Reactor Programme, and which decisions, approvals or capability gaps will require the Director's most immediate attention?
- How are responsibilities currently divided among NUPEA, the relevant regulator, ministries, research institutions and international partners for nuclear research reactor development?
- What research themes are currently prioritized in the Directorate, and where does NUPEA see the greatest opportunity to influence national energy policy and investment decisions?
- What level of authority, budget, team capacity and partnership-development support will the Director have to deliver the Directorate's mandate?

RED FLAGS TO WATCH FOR

- Unclear governance for the Nuclear Research Reactor Programme, including vague ownership of safety, security, safeguards, regulatory engagement, decision-making and accountability.
- A mismatch between the Directorate's mandate and its practical resources, such as insufficient budget, specialist staffing, data systems, laboratory capability or authority to coordinate external stakeholders.
- Pressure to accelerate technical or infrastructure decisions without clear feasibility evidence, regulatory readiness, international-standard compliance, transparent risk management or stakeholder engagement.