The enormous needs of South Asia disaster victims are clear and compelling. The best way to meet those needs is far less obvious. The present approach is to gather as much money as possible and spend it on immediate relief. This approach needs to be changed.

The challenges to effective humanitarian relief in situations like the tsunamis (or genocide in Rwanda or earthquakes in Iran or war in Iraq or locusts in Burkina Faso) are incredibly complex. There are logistic, communication and coordination nightmares complicated by washed-out roads, mined borders, scattered islands (there was still no communication to 30 of the Maldive Islands a week into the disaster), airplanes hitting cows (as happened in Indonesia), and a convoluted landscape of players including the U.N.; donor governments and agencies; governments of countries affected by the crises; non-governmental organizations (NGOs); philanthropic foundations, corporations and the giving public; and the individuals who have suffered loss.

Yet even more challenging are the complex interdependencies that affect all aspects of the relief effort. Addressing one need in isolation is rarely effective. When military helicopters performed their rescue mission so well, they contributed to the problem of overcrowding in the region's hospitals. A system of sensors to provide advance warning of a tsunami is useless without a system in place to do something with that knowledge, including agency coordination, education about what to do and training to carry it out.

When Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) said recently that it didn't need additional donations, it provoked outrage from many who worried that this might stem the tide of generosity rising to counter the destruction caused by the tsunami waves.

Both MSF and those who responded angrily to the statement were right, for they were talking about different things. MSF's work to provide and support doctors in the stricken region is critically important, but at this time more money, earmarked solely for the immediate crisis in South Asia, will make no difference in its heroic efforts.

If, however, the current outpouring of generosity is viewed more generally (as U.N. humanitarian chief Jan Egeland has urged), then the current wave of giving should be expanded both in amount and, even more importantly, purpose.

Nothing short of a fundamental change in how we view humanitarian philanthropy is required.

Presently, donor governments, foundations, corporations and the giving public focus on relief of the immediate situation. They target their funds to provide water, medicine, food, shelter and sanitation in direct response to visible human need and suffering. These philanthropic efforts are an expression of what is best and noblest in humankind.

Unfortunately, it is far more difficult to find support for what is needed to more effectively mitigate the next disaster. Our humanitarian instincts do not generally encompass abstract items such as infrastructure to support communication and coordination, assessment systems for early warning and response, or knowledge systems to capture and apply lessons learned from previous efforts.

A child is far more compelling than a satellite phone, but a well-placed satellite phone can help reduce the suffering of many children.

To a large extent, the humanitarian-relief sector reinvents itself with each new catastrophe. Faced with so much to do under such chaotic conditions, there is little time, energy or resources for ongoing assessment and improvement.

Equally important, there is no formal humanitarian-relief profession; no degree that credentials workers, or journal devoted to research on improving humanitarian-relief systems. Field workers learn on the job and there is a turnover rate of nearly 80 percent per year in humanitarian-relief NGOs. Yet, humanitarian relief is, unfortunately, a "growth industry" attracting tens of billions of dollars each year.

We need to change the way we support this critical and courageous industry. We need to empower its organizations and people, invest in their education, conduct research that provides them with better tools and techniques, and support the development of human and technology infrastructure that will enable workers to not only conduct their complex work this time, but do it better the next.

By giving not only to direct relief, but also to strategic management, education and research, we can help professionalize the humanitarian-relief sector and empower its courageous workers.

Last June, the University of Washington used precious innovation funds to establish the Interdisciplinary Program in Humanitarian Relief. During phase one, the College of Engineering and Marc Lindenberg Center at the Evans School of Public Affairs are working with NGOs, donor agencies and corporations to accomplish precisely these long-term goals for the humanitarian relief sector.

We are saddened that the wisdom of the university's investment has been so vividly demonstrated by so much tragedy.

Mark Haselkorn is a professor and founding chairman of the Department of Technical Communication as well as research director for the Interdisciplinary Program in Humanitarian Relief at the University of Washington. On the Web at: