Agency for International Development (USAID) in 1970 and adopted by a range of
international organizations, including agricultural R4D (Schubert et al. 1991). The
approach has been widely required by funding agencies and has thus been used for
project planning, management and evaluation and adheres to a relatively rigid
framework. It tends to prescribe a hierarchy of objectives converging on a single
goal, a set of measurable and time-bound indicators of achievement, checkable
sources of information, and assumptions of other impinging factors (Gasper 2000).
In the R4D context, the underlying assumption is that development agencies,
communication units, ministry staff and other people who could use the findings
are able to source the scientific evidence, understand it, know how to implement
and apply it, and convey this to people who they think need them. In this case both
research and development have their mandates, responsibilities and clearly defined
boundaries.
While this has been a useful approach for several decades, it is debatable
whether it is entirely suitable for ensuring the use of research results and their
translation into outcomes. Crawford and Bryce (2003) note that although much of
the literature promotes the use of the LFA for the purposes of M&E, it has proven
inadequate and evidence for its usefulness is lacking. The LFA does not pay enough
attention to involving key stakeholders in a joint process, emphasizing the stakeholder networks needed to achieve impact, providing managers with the information needed both to learn and to report to their funding agencies, and establishing a
research framework to examine the critical processes of change that projects seek to
initiate and sustain (Douthwaite et al. 2008).
CCAFS has gone through several iterations of the logframe that was employed
for planning and reporting (CCAFS 2015c). In 2010, a limited version was used
(CCAFS 2010) while more elements were added in the following years. Planning
and reporting elements were pre-determined to some extent by requirements from
CGIAR, though for internal purposes additional elements were added in response to
the limitations that were identified from year to year.
4.6 Testing the Waters with Theory of Change and ResultsBased Management in CCAFS
In addition to the use of logframe elements within the CCAFS planning and
reporting system, at program design stage CCAFS also explicitly included a
research theme entitled ‘Knowledge to Action’ in its portfolio (Jost et al. 2014a).
The team was experimenting with strategies of getting from research outputs to
development outcomes. This theme was tasked with research, not with creating an
operational mechanism for CCAFS per se. It was only in year 3, when CCAFS
started working in two new target regions, that opportunities presented themselves
to trial a TOC approach within this new component of the R4D portfolio (Jost and
Sebastian 2014; Jost et al. 2014b). Very early on it became clear that a new way of
4 Pathway to Impact: Supporting and Evaluating Enabling Environments for. . .
63
international organizations, including agricultural R4D (Schubert et al. 1991). The
approach has been widely required by funding agencies and has thus been used for
project planning, management and evaluation and adheres to a relatively rigid
framework. It tends to prescribe a hierarchy of objectives converging on a single
goal, a set of measurable and time-bound indicators of achievement, checkable
sources of information, and assumptions of other impinging factors (Gasper 2000).
In the R4D context, the underlying assumption is that development agencies,
communication units, ministry staff and other people who could use the findings
are able to source the scientific evidence, understand it, know how to implement
and apply it, and convey this to people who they think need them. In this case both
research and development have their mandates, responsibilities and clearly defined
boundaries.
While this has been a useful approach for several decades, it is debatable
whether it is entirely suitable for ensuring the use of research results and their
translation into outcomes. Crawford and Bryce (2003) note that although much of
the literature promotes the use of the LFA for the purposes of M&E, it has proven
inadequate and evidence for its usefulness is lacking. The LFA does not pay enough
attention to involving key stakeholders in a joint process, emphasizing the stakeholder networks needed to achieve impact, providing managers with the information needed both to learn and to report to their funding agencies, and establishing a
research framework to examine the critical processes of change that projects seek to
initiate and sustain (Douthwaite et al. 2008).
CCAFS has gone through several iterations of the logframe that was employed
for planning and reporting (CCAFS 2015c). In 2010, a limited version was used
(CCAFS 2010) while more elements were added in the following years. Planning
and reporting elements were pre-determined to some extent by requirements from
CGIAR, though for internal purposes additional elements were added in response to
the limitations that were identified from year to year.
4.6 Testing the Waters with Theory of Change and ResultsBased Management in CCAFS
In addition to the use of logframe elements within the CCAFS planning and
reporting system, at program design stage CCAFS also explicitly included a
research theme entitled ‘Knowledge to Action’ in its portfolio (Jost et al. 2014a).
The team was experimenting with strategies of getting from research outputs to
development outcomes. This theme was tasked with research, not with creating an
operational mechanism for CCAFS per se. It was only in year 3, when CCAFS
started working in two new target regions, that opportunities presented themselves
to trial a TOC approach within this new component of the R4D portfolio (Jost and
Sebastian 2014; Jost et al. 2014b). Very early on it became clear that a new way of
4 Pathway to Impact: Supporting and Evaluating Enabling Environments for. . .
63