importance of building capacity for institutional learning (Hall et al. 2003; Horton
and Mackay 2003; Eade 1997; Springer-Heinze et al. 2003). Eade (1997) emphasizes a capacity-building approach, training of staff in a variety of relevant skills,
and the dynamic and long-term nature of the process when looking at types of social
organization of NGOs engaged in development theory and practice. Johnson et al.
(2003) show that participation of non-research stakeholders early on in the research
process is important, as it can inform institutional learning in research organizations
to change priorities and practices. It can also enhance the relevance of agricultural
technologies and the capacity of these stakeholders to design their own action
research processes (Johnson et al. 2003). Horton and Mackay (2003) outline the
links between M&E, learning and institutional change and highlight the importance
of institutional learning as a means to develop the capacities of the organization and
of individual researchers, as well as empowering non-research partners as key
stakeholders in the process.
CCAFS worked with expert facilitators and trainers from PIPA to implement a
1-week training course on using TOC for project and program planning (Alvarez
et al. 2014). Participants were chosen strategically so that capacity would be
available in the CGIAR Centers at the point in time when CGIAR proposals
would need to be developed following the TOC principles. In addition to project
representatives, CCAFS science officers representing all themes and regions participated, in order to build in-house capacity of TOC champions. The training, in
combination with TOC facilitation guides (version 1: Jost et al. 2014d; version 2:
Schuetz et al. 2014d) and learning notes (CCAFS 2015a), helped highlight the
opportunities (and constraints) of rolling out RBM to a whole R4D program. An
online community of practice (and wikispace) was established and allowed for
continued documentation and exchange of experiences.
4.9 CCAFS’ Results-Based Management Trial: Insights
from Researchers and Partners
CCAFS’ approach to RBM is centered on adaptive management, regular communications between program and projects, and facilitated learning within projects.
Besides periodic virtual meetings, trial participants were surveyed for a more
in-depth and standardized reflection, and for capturing lessons and achievements
from their experience (Schuetz et al. 2014b, c). These lessons also formed the basis
for the progress report to CO (Thornton et al. 2014c). Ten months into the RBM
trial, the progress report summarized project participant experiences, as well as the
programmatic perspective.
From the programmatic level, reflections and lessons by the CCAFS Program
Management Committee have been documented in the CO progress report, as well
as in the series of learning notes (CCAFS 2015a). It was a great learning experience
to have an RBM trial with the six projects and to be allowed to test and tryout what
4 Pathway to Impact: Supporting and Evaluating Enabling Environments for. . .
67
and Mackay 2003; Eade 1997; Springer-Heinze et al. 2003). Eade (1997) emphasizes a capacity-building approach, training of staff in a variety of relevant skills,
and the dynamic and long-term nature of the process when looking at types of social
organization of NGOs engaged in development theory and practice. Johnson et al.
(2003) show that participation of non-research stakeholders early on in the research
process is important, as it can inform institutional learning in research organizations
to change priorities and practices. It can also enhance the relevance of agricultural
technologies and the capacity of these stakeholders to design their own action
research processes (Johnson et al. 2003). Horton and Mackay (2003) outline the
links between M&E, learning and institutional change and highlight the importance
of institutional learning as a means to develop the capacities of the organization and
of individual researchers, as well as empowering non-research partners as key
stakeholders in the process.
CCAFS worked with expert facilitators and trainers from PIPA to implement a
1-week training course on using TOC for project and program planning (Alvarez
et al. 2014). Participants were chosen strategically so that capacity would be
available in the CGIAR Centers at the point in time when CGIAR proposals
would need to be developed following the TOC principles. In addition to project
representatives, CCAFS science officers representing all themes and regions participated, in order to build in-house capacity of TOC champions. The training, in
combination with TOC facilitation guides (version 1: Jost et al. 2014d; version 2:
Schuetz et al. 2014d) and learning notes (CCAFS 2015a), helped highlight the
opportunities (and constraints) of rolling out RBM to a whole R4D program. An
online community of practice (and wikispace) was established and allowed for
continued documentation and exchange of experiences.
4.9 CCAFS’ Results-Based Management Trial: Insights
from Researchers and Partners
CCAFS’ approach to RBM is centered on adaptive management, regular communications between program and projects, and facilitated learning within projects.
Besides periodic virtual meetings, trial participants were surveyed for a more
in-depth and standardized reflection, and for capturing lessons and achievements
from their experience (Schuetz et al. 2014b, c). These lessons also formed the basis
for the progress report to CO (Thornton et al. 2014c). Ten months into the RBM
trial, the progress report summarized project participant experiences, as well as the
programmatic perspective.
From the programmatic level, reflections and lessons by the CCAFS Program
Management Committee have been documented in the CO progress report, as well
as in the series of learning notes (CCAFS 2015a). It was a great learning experience
to have an RBM trial with the six projects and to be allowed to test and tryout what
4 Pathway to Impact: Supporting and Evaluating Enabling Environments for. . .
67