is required to make the shift from a LFA to an approach that is much more peoplefocused, learning-focused and outcome-focused. The approach to developing the
IPs was simplified over time, mostly in relation to a reduction in the type and
number of indicators and level of complexity so that the wider group of people who
were expected to work with them would continue to buy in to the approach (Schuetz
et al. 2014d).
The survey results show that there are many people within CGIAR Centers and
CCAFS partners who are willing to take on the challenge to develop new ways of
collaborating and working beyond delivering outputs towards outcomes (Schuetz
et al. 2014b). From the survey, the RBM trial team found that the projects had made
considerable progress, but also that making fundamental shifts in the way of
working take time and (initially at least) additional resources. It requires iterative
and continuous processes. Staffing, or the profile of project team members, and
project team composition are emerging as key factors for success. Project staff has
acknowledged that they may require additional skills beyond disciplinary expertise,
such as skills in coordination, facilitation, engagement, communications, and
participatory and learning-oriented M&E. The RBM trial team is using the findings
from the survey to explore how additional support can be provided in such areas as
engaging with stakeholders and using RBM.
4.10 Rolling Out Results-Based Management for CCAFS
as a Whole
Opportunities for changing the programmatic approach to project planning, implementation and MEL emerged when CCAFS was approaching the end of its first
phase in 2014. The mandate to implement an RBM trial came at a perfect time – it
was initiated in advance so that it could inform the planning of the CCAFS
extension phase (2015–2016), as well as Phase 2 proposal development
(2017–2022). With a time lag of several months between the RBM trial and
CCAFS as a whole, the program planning process and TOCs were developed and
defined for all four research and five regional programs as a first step to putting
together the new program portfolio (Schuetz et al. 2014e). Figure 4.4 provides an
illustration of one research theme’s impact pathway component with its regional
elements, indicators and outcome targets.
Experience in CPWF also shows that an intense process is required to finalize the
program portfolio and allow for the appropriate triangulation and harmonization
between thematic perspective, regional context and individual project proposals to
ensure programmatic coherence, cohesion and its relevance and potential for
impact (Hall et al. 2014; Biswas et al. 2008). This requires intense bilateral virtual
preparation between research and regional teams, facilitated face-to-face time (e.g.
in the form of workshops or writeshops), and follow-up work. Intensive workshops
bring together project leaders, key national and regional partners and core program
68
T. Schuetz et al.
IPs was simplified over time, mostly in relation to a reduction in the type and
number of indicators and level of complexity so that the wider group of people who
were expected to work with them would continue to buy in to the approach (Schuetz
et al. 2014d).
The survey results show that there are many people within CGIAR Centers and
CCAFS partners who are willing to take on the challenge to develop new ways of
collaborating and working beyond delivering outputs towards outcomes (Schuetz
et al. 2014b). From the survey, the RBM trial team found that the projects had made
considerable progress, but also that making fundamental shifts in the way of
working take time and (initially at least) additional resources. It requires iterative
and continuous processes. Staffing, or the profile of project team members, and
project team composition are emerging as key factors for success. Project staff has
acknowledged that they may require additional skills beyond disciplinary expertise,
such as skills in coordination, facilitation, engagement, communications, and
participatory and learning-oriented M&E. The RBM trial team is using the findings
from the survey to explore how additional support can be provided in such areas as
engaging with stakeholders and using RBM.
4.10 Rolling Out Results-Based Management for CCAFS
as a Whole
Opportunities for changing the programmatic approach to project planning, implementation and MEL emerged when CCAFS was approaching the end of its first
phase in 2014. The mandate to implement an RBM trial came at a perfect time – it
was initiated in advance so that it could inform the planning of the CCAFS
extension phase (2015–2016), as well as Phase 2 proposal development
(2017–2022). With a time lag of several months between the RBM trial and
CCAFS as a whole, the program planning process and TOCs were developed and
defined for all four research and five regional programs as a first step to putting
together the new program portfolio (Schuetz et al. 2014e). Figure 4.4 provides an
illustration of one research theme’s impact pathway component with its regional
elements, indicators and outcome targets.
Experience in CPWF also shows that an intense process is required to finalize the
program portfolio and allow for the appropriate triangulation and harmonization
between thematic perspective, regional context and individual project proposals to
ensure programmatic coherence, cohesion and its relevance and potential for
impact (Hall et al. 2014; Biswas et al. 2008). This requires intense bilateral virtual
preparation between research and regional teams, facilitated face-to-face time (e.g.
in the form of workshops or writeshops), and follow-up work. Intensive workshops
bring together project leaders, key national and regional partners and core program
68
T. Schuetz et al.