Learning Together for Agricultural Change

NARO-MAK-ICRA Collaborative Initiative
LEARNING TOGETHER FOR CHANGE IN INTEGRATED AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH FOR DEVELOPMENT (IAR4D) IN UGANDA
Documentation of the first learning workshop held at the Continuing Agricultural Education Centre (CAEC), 19-24 April 2004
Volume I
Facilitation by: R. Hawkins, J. Hagmann, P. Kibwika, M.G. NassunaMusoke and R. Miiro
Documentation by:
D. Akullo, P. Kibwika and Chris Opondo
ii
Learning together for change in IAR4D, First Learning Workshop, 19-24 April, 2004, CAEC
This is a documentation of the first in a series of learning workshops under the NARO-MAK-ICRA collaborative initiative of learning together for change in integrated agricultural research for Development (IAR4D). This volume is for the first group at the Continuing Agricultural Education Centre (CAEC), held 19-24 April 2004. It is not a final synthesized report but it captures all the workshop outputs and process in an non-interpreted way. THIS IS MEANT TO BE A REFERENCE DOCUMENT for all participants and is intended to provide details of what transpired in the learning workshop. It contains the presentations and outcomes of group and plenary sessions. However, it does not include all the resource materials handed out to the participants as hand-outs.
iii
Table of Contents
Acronyms....................................................................................................................................v Opening and setting the scene ................................................................................... 1 1.0 1.1 Opening of the workshop ............................................................................................ 1 1.2 Background and objectives of the workshop .............................................................. 1 1.3.1 Participant introductions....................................................................................... 2 1.4 Governance and co-management of the training........................................................ 3 1.4.1 Overall steering committee .................................................................................. 3 1.4.2 Planning and implementation team (PIT) ............................................................ 3 1.4.3 Workshop process steering committee................................................................ 3 1.4.4 Feedback and toolbox committee........................................................................ 4 1.4.5 Welfare committee ............................................................................................... 4 2.0 Background of the Initiative ........................................................................................ 5 Vision of the initiative .................................................................................................. 5 2.1 2.2 Design of the learning process.................................................................................... 5 2.2.1 Phase I outline ..................................................................................................... 5 2.2.2 Inputs for workshop 2, Phase 1 ........................................................................... 6 2.2.3 Outputs from workshop 1..................................................................................... 6 2.4 Why the new way of doing business?......................................................................... 7 2.5 Evolution of the NARO change process ..................................................................... 8 Sharing experiences in the new way of doing business .......................................... 9 3.0 3.1 The African Highlands Initiative Experiences in INRM ............................................... 9 3.1.1 Background:......................................................................................................... 9 3.1.2 INRM definition: ................................................................................................... 9 3.1.3 What is different? ............................................................................................... 10 3.1.4 Elements needed to Manage an Effective INRM process ................................. 11 3.1.5 What is the effect? ............................................................................................. 12 3.3 Example of competence development for new ways of learning and doing research at MAK: context and design issues ......................................................................... 12 3.3.1 Background........................................................................................................ 12 3.3.2 How can this be done? ...................................................................................... 13 3.3.3 The Pilot ............................................................................................................. 13 3.3.4 Design of the learning program ......................................................................... 13 3.4.5 Expected Impacts .............................................................................................. 14 3.5 Experiences of the ARDC approach ......................................................................... 14 3.5.1 Achievements of the ARDC Approach............................................................... 14 Some elements of personal development................................................................ 15 4.0 4.1 Emotional intelligence: .............................................................................................. 15 4.2 The JoHari window.................................................................................................... 17 4.3.1 Rules for giving and receiving feedback ............................................................ 19 4.3.2 Practicing giving and receiving feedback........................................................... 19
5.0 Experiences in the new way of doing business ...................... 20

5.1 Criteria for self assessment in the NWDB ......................................................... 20 5.2 Self-assessment in the NWDB.................................................................................. 21 5.2.1 Group I report - NARIs ....................................................................................... 21 5.2.2 Group II report - ZARIs ...................................................................................... 22 5.2.3 Group III report - MAK........................................................................................ 23 5.3 Towards key challenges............................................................................................ 24 5.4 What we want to Achieve in this learning process.................................................... 27 6.0 Getting into systems .................................................................................................. 28 6.1 Visualizing partnerships ............................................................................................ 28
iv
6.1.1 Characteristics of the diagrams ......................................................................... 28 6.2 Types of systems ...................................................................................................... 29 6.2.1 Mapping social systems..................................................................................... 29 6.2.2 The system game .............................................................................................. 30 6.2.3 Processing the system game............................................................................. 31 6.3 Innovation systems debrief ....................................................................................... 31 6.3.1 Shift from cotton and millet led production to sweet potato ............................... 32 6.3.2 Change from indigenous to exotic dairy production .......................................... 32 6.3.3 Shift from indigenous sorghum to epuripur (improved) production ................... 33 6.3.4 Shift from cotton to coffee production inregion .............................................. 33 6.3.5 Shift from cotton to sunflower production .......................................................... 33 6.3.6 Shift from traditional to clonal coffee production................................................ 34 6.3.7 Shift from rice to vanilla production.................................................................... 34 6.4 Systems change........................................................................................................ 35 6.4.1 Driving forces in the innovations change ........................................................... 36 6.5 How to induce change in a social system ................................................................. 36 6.8 The blanket game ..................................................................................................... 39 6.8.1 Processing the blanket game.................................................................................... 39 Introduction to teams ................................................................................................. 40 7.0 7.1 Sharing Experiences of working in teams................................................................. 40 7.2 Factors for team success .......................................................................................... 41 7.3 Inter-disciplinary teams; ............................................................................................ 41 7.4 Research issues at zonal levels................................................................................ 42 7.5 Future NARS............................................................................................................. 43 Structure and functions ...................................................................................... 43 7.5.1 7.5.2 Components of PARI System ............................................................................ 44 7.5.3 Key Functions of ZARIs ..................................................................................... 44 7.5.4 Funding .............................................................................................................. 44 7.5.5 Management structure ....................................................................................... 44 7.5.6 Operational approach ........................................................................................ 45 7.5.7 Components of the PARI System ...................................................................... 45 7.5.8 Functions ........................................................................................................... 45 7.5.9 Funding .............................................................................................................. 45 7.5.10 Functional relationships ..................................................................................... 45 7.5.11 Management fora............................................................................................... 46 7.5.12 Capacities and Competences............................................................................ 46 7.5.13 Considerations for Management........................................................................ 46 Planning for the field work......................................................................................... 48 8.0 8.1 Clarifying outputs of field phase1.............................................................................. 48 8.2 Outcomes of the group task ...................................................................................... 48 8.3 Presentation to the visitors........................................................................................ 49 8.3.1 Reactions after the gallery walk......................................................................... 51 8.4 Towards an action plan for field phase......................................................................... 52 8.5 Exploring the system................................................................................................. 53 8.5.1 Explaining the system ........................................................................................ 53 8.5.2 Identifying the stakeholders ............................................................................... 54 8.5.3 Why stakeholder analysis or matrix? ................................................................. 54 8.6 Workshop Evaluation ................................................................................................ 55
Acronyms
AHI ARDC ASARECA BUCADEF CAEC CGIAR COARD CORI DDG DG EATRI ESARC FIRI FORI IAR4D ICRA INRM IRD KARI LG M&E MAK NAADS NARI NARO NARS NEMA NFA NGO NRM NWDB PARI PIT PMA R&D SAARI ZARI African Highlands Initiative Agricultural Research Development Centres, NARO Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa Buganda Cultural and Development Foundation Continuing Agricultural Education Centre, Makerere University Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research Client Oriented Agricultural Research for Development Coffee Research Institute Deputy Director General, NARO Director General, NARO Engineering and Appropriate Technology Research Institute Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Center Fisheries Research Institute Forestry Research Institute Integrated Agricultural Research for Development International Centre for development oriented Research in Agriculture, Wageningen Integrated Natural Resources Management Integrated Research for Development Kawanda Agricultural Research Institute Local Government Monitoring and Evaluation Makerere University, Uganda National Agricultural Advisory Services National Agricultural Research Institute National Agricultural Research Organisation, Uganda National Agricultural Research System National Environment Management Authority National Forest Authority Non-Government Organizations Natural Resource Management New way of Doing Business in research, Uganda Public Agricultural Research Institute Project Implementation Team Plan for Modernization of Agriculture, Uganda Research and Development Serere Agricultural and Animal Research Institute, NARO Zonal Agricultural Research Institutes, NARO
vi
1.0
1.1
Opening and setting the scene

Opening of the workshop The overall coordinator for the NARO-MAK-ICRA initiative, Emily Twinamasiko, welcomed all the participants who came from both within and outside Uganda for workshop 1. She invited Paul one of the organizers to give a brief to participants on the programme. Paul gave insights into the programme and remarked that the seating arrangement where no high table was provided was purposive because it signifies that all are equal and should contribute freely. He gave an outline of the day's programme but also asked participants to refer to their invitation letters for detailed objectives of the workshop. He invited the guest of honour to the floor.
The Guest of Honour, the Dean of the Faculty of Agriculture officially opened the workshop and also delivered a message from the Director General of NARO to the participants. He commended the NARO, MAK and ICRA collaborative initiative as a means of creating meaningful change in Uganda. The Dean encouraged all participants to treat the joint learning process as full time commitment in order to acquire more knowledge through shared experiences from the workshop participants for personal development and skills consolidation. He observed that the role of MAK is challenging because they have to train and impart basic skill in a limited time frame to researchers to guide them in their lifetime commitment in the field. He recognized that as researchers continually engage in the field, they become more knowledgeable but still need to be able to confront the diversity and complexity in the field. Thus the need for continuous training of human resource in such a creative manner is inevitable. 1.2 Background and objectives of the workshop
Paul elaborated further that, the workshop focus on building teams as required in NARO's New Way of Doing Business (NWDB) with respect to the National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) policy and what it means to all the participants. The presentation of different approaches will provide the basis of discussion on how to move forward with the new way of doing business (NWDB). The discussions will enlighten the participants and the institutions on the implications for putting the new way into practice. The workshop (19th April to 1st May, 2004) is the first in a series of NARO, MAK ICRA initiatives to be held, being a result of reviews and realignment that the NARO's research strategies were subjected to in workshop fora held in Jinja and Mukono respectively in the year 2003. From those workshops, the participants developed several themes for organizing research.
1.3 1.3.1
Knowing each other Participant introductions The introductions were innovative and interactive. The participants exchanged information as specified in the task and introduced each other to the plenary. This type of introduction broke the ice for the participants to know a little more about each other and open-up so that they begin to interact and share information more freely. The introductions went further to allow the participants to explore and share some of their core values and personal vision. Sharing of some personal issues opens windows for more closer interactions. In pairs the participants also discussed and agreed on their expectations and fears of the workshop. These were specified by: what they wished to see happen and what they did not want to see happen in the workshop. The expectations and fears were clustered. These served as a guide to the facilitator to plan the process and steer it in way that would be most productive. It was also a self-control mechanism among participants. On the part of the facilitators, Richard Miiro assured that they would try as much as possible to address the concerns of the participants. The participants and facilitators then agreed on the start time as 9.00 am and end time as 5.30 pm.
1.3.2
Expectations and fears
Participant expectations of the workshop What I would like to see happen is . See better Develop Relevance Clear plan ways of for how to common to my doing utilize vision on work business in outcomes plan of -Realize current from the workshop the value ADS workshop of their -Leave here -Coming out training changed with and its and can do application implement things to what we able differently strategies do -Options and learning how to
Active participation of all participants -Full participation and free interaction of all members -Learning in a participatory manner
Acquire new knowledge
Team formation to start change process
Participants' fears of the workshop What participants did not want to see happening is . Confusion No blame Poor time To exit No sense of without about for any management ownership workshop mistake and/or time being or objectives wastage equipped commitment -Not to with new to put things knowledge into practice reach the objectives of the workshop -Lack of focus in work 1.4 Governance and co-management of the training
Management of the initiative and learning workshops is through various committees. Paul, one of the facilitators introduced the governance committees and facilitated selection of the workshop co-management committees. The governance committee are the overall steering committee and the planning and implementation team (PIT). The co-management committees are the process steering committee, feedback committee and welfare committee. 1.4.1 Overall steering committee This is the top most management committee comprising of: The Director General NARO - Chairman; Dean of faculty of Agriculture - Vice chairman; Richard Hawkins, Emily Twinamasiko, Paul Kibwika, David Rees, j rgen Hagmann and Dickson Baguma. Emily being the over all coordinator and David Rees in charge of finance. 1.4.2 Planning and implementation team (PIT)
The PIT team members are: Richard Hawkins, Emily Twinamasiko, Paul Kibwika, Richard Miiro, David Rees, J rgen Hagmann, Ann Stroud, Diana Akullo, Chris Opondo and Herbert Akol. Paul, Chris and Diana have an additional interest of understudying the process and outcomes of the initiative. 1.4.3 Workshop process steering committee The Workshop Process Steering Committee whose core members are; Richard Miiro, Richard Hawkins, Emily Twinamasiko, Paul Kibwika, Juergen Hagmann and Maria Nassuna. Some of the members were selected from among the participants and are Geoffrey Tusiime, Hilda Ruhesi, Peter Lusembo and John Okorio. The major role of this committee is to co-manage the workshop by getting the feedback from the participants about the process and content and bringing this into the daily planning process. The committee sits every evening to review the days proceedings and plan for the next day.
1.4.4
Feedback and toolbox committee
Single committee served to monitor the process and also compile the tools used each day for reference purposes. The process monitoring involves observing and noting the dynamics between the facilitators and participants; the facilitators and the content; and the participants and content. The committee reports back to the plenary every day. Unlike the steering committee, this one is not a permanent one, it changes every day. Those who serve on this committee also have the responsibility to innovatively select another team that takes over. This is done every morning. 1.4.5 Welfare committee The welfare committee is a permanent committee composed of 2-3 people to care of all the welfare concerns of the participants. They receive and follow-up all welfare matters with the relevant people. They are also charged with the responsibility to organize all forms of entertainment to satisfy the different interests of participants. They may make announcements or report to the plenary whenever there is need.
2.0
2.1
Background of the Initiative

Vision of the initiative Richard Hawkins presented the vision of the NARO-MAKICRA initiative of "Learning together for change in Integrated Agricultural Research for Development (IAR4D) in Uganda." The initiative is intended to strengthen the human and institutional capacity to undertake IAR4D as a new way of doing business in Uganda and the Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in East and Central Africa (ASARECA) region. He remarked that NARO is changing and so is MAK. In the process, ICRA is also learning from experience in training researchers from all over the world from the past 20 or so years. The project the first of its kind and pioneered in Uganda will be implemented at three phases: Phase (i) will focus on learning initiatives Phase (ii) will try to understand what the initiative means for different research institutions i.e. NARO and MAK Phase (iii) will involve out-scaling to the approach to the region Design of the learning process
2.2
The design of the learning process is meant to be iterative between learning workshop to share experiences and subject matter content and practice. The participants practice what they have learnt in the workshop and draw lessons which are shared in the next learning workshop as a learning resource. This approach is meant to be experiential requiring innovative and high quality facilitation that allows participants to learn from their experience while at the same time gain new knowledge. This is the main reason it is referred to as a learning process rather than a training process. The process is structured into three phases: the first one is the pilot focussing on developing the capacity of the zonal teams, the second is the scaling-up of the process within NARO and partner organizations and the third is scaling-up within the ASARECA region. Following is an outline of the first phase of the initiative. 2.2.1 Phase I outline Outcomes (what is the common vision behind the whole initiative?) Partnerships context (Who are the people you are engaging with and what is their relevance and what kind of inputs do they bring in? Do they add value to the collaboration?)
1st learning cycle
Workshop 1
Workshop 2
Livelihoods and market opportunities (What resources are available to the different groups and how do they respond to the uncertainties they are faced with? Is the initiative relevant to all involved?) Strategy (what do the changes imply and how institutions respond to their competitive advantage. What are the social impacts to the different groups, stakeholders and the natural resource base? With a better idea of this stage, then we move to period between workshop 3 and 4 which is commitments) Commitments (meaningful change can only be achieved if people work together and share information) Modifications to plans: how do all the above stages result in a redesign of the on-going projects? All involved in the change process develop a broader vision and apply for competitive fund from the basket funding)
Workshop3
Workshop4
Workshop 5
2.2.2
Inputs for workshop 2, Phase 1
1. The issues, problems and objectives identified in the first workshop will serve as a focal point for the learning cycle 2. Negotiated teams that bring together what is relevant as part of the on-going work from NARIs, ZARIs MAK and others should work on shared issues and define problems from a zonal perspective 3. Stakeholder analysis conducted to re-define problems and objectives 4. Tentative action plan for teams during the learning cycle refined from objectives, partnership, strategy, and challenges to schedule.
2.2.3
Outputs from workshop 1
1. Emerging picture of the new way of doing business clearly understood and scepticism over the change process allayed 2. A shared understanding of the change process reached and enhanced, commitment to the learning initiative enhanced 3. Enhanced team work and personal skills developed providing space for the development of participants and the organizations 4. Enhanced skills in stakeholder analysis and partnerships facilitation to achieve shared vision 5. Enhanced understanding of innovation from a systems perspective 6. Action plan for developing a team and shareholder platform drawn
2.3
Flow of the workshop and roadmap
J rgen presented more detailed information on flow of the workshop guided by questions, in the chart.
Reactions Q: How do you reconcile the spatial distribution of scientists and the different teams? A: Zonal teams will be implementing on-going research activities. Theme leaders expected to come and influence the team formation. Q: How can the information from the workshop be synthesized with the activities in the field? A: . The facilitator and different groups will reflect and create space for improvement paying attention to what was done, what could have been done better and what it means. 2.4 Why the new way of doing business?
Learning together to get new skills as a means for bringing about change. This was followed by the hypothetical question that, why do we need new skills and change? Following the formulation of the Plan for Modernization of Agriculture (PMA) policy, the NARS policy was reviewed and NARO was compelled to become PMA and NARS policy compliant. The immediate demand was for NARO to become more client and market oriented, as these are issues that came out strongly in the policies. What are the implications for NARO's research approaches? In the workshop that took place in Mukono, a roadmap was developed to realign NARO to become PMA and NARs policy compliant and this led to the development of the themes along which research teams will be formed to realize an IAR4D. Emily reported that in the workshop held at Hotel Equatorial, the Director General NARO, Director of NARIs, Centre managers of ZARIs and theme leaders discussed the need to build
competencies to match with the tasks ahead. The DG specifically raised concern on the need to form teams that blend with the themes. This workshop was convened to identify and fill gaps for IAR4D. The identification was based on the feedback from zonal teams (ZARI) through monitoring in the learning process. Issues and concerns Q: Why ZARI/zonal teams? A: They are on the ground and are the platform for researchers and stakeholder interaction and communications. The teams also work in partnership with the local leaders e.g. DAO, extension, and community based organizations etc. Leaders and research managers were invited to the workshop so that a common vision is developed together. Research managers are expected to evaluate all the learning processes while the directors are expected to give full support to participating scientists from their institutions. Q: Is there room for the workshops to be organized during periods when scientists are not so busy in the field? Q: Is there a possibility of involving the technicians who do most of the groundwork? This is because, researchers may acquire required knowledge to work in a more client-oriented way, but technicians will continue doing business as usual if they are not involved in the learning cycles. Steering committee took note of the issues raised. Former NARO programs were commodity based and the task is reorganizing projects to respond to demands and the market as spelt out in the current themes. Under the realignment, training plans were developed to enhance proposal-writing skills. 2.5 Evolution of the NARO change process
Realignment of the NARO research programs has been mainly shaped by two workshops involving a wide range of stakeholders: 1. The Mukono workshop This one focussed on: x What are the implications of PMA and NARS on NARO's research programs? x What are then the overall challenges in agricultural development in Uganda? x Within these challenges, what are the researchable issues? x Clustering similar issues, which can be dealt with together?
NARO Themes
(1) Understanding people and their livelihoods (2) Enhancing innovation processes (3) Enhancing integrated management of natural resources (4) Technological options that respond to market demands and opportunities (5) Enabling policies and linking producers to the market
2. Jinja workshop x Developed 9 themes that were consolidated into 5 x Working out objectives and strategies of themes and allocating present projects x Designing ways of operationalisation (NAROs strategy through NARIs and ZARIs). Refer to the themes, internalize how the old projects were organized and how they fit into the new themes
3.0
3.1
Sharing experiences in the new way of doing business

The African Highlands Initiative Experiences in INRM (presentation by Ann Stroud / Chris Opondo)
The Integrated Natural Resources Management Approach (INRM) 3.1.1 Background:
In 1995, when AHI was initiated, and periodically since then it has been noted that there has been LIMITED IMPACT FROM NRM RESEARCH. We asked Why? (reasons are bullets) and then reasoned what needed to change to improve the situation ( as arrows ) as follows: WHY? (bullets analysis of past approach; needed approaches) x Blanket recommendations did not work integrated systems approach increased participation of stakeholders community innovation Social concerns not catered for Collective management, Resource endowment levels need to be taken into account Institutional aspects Incentives for change needed often perspective is very short term Market incentives (and links to NRM) Policy incentives (to encourage long term investments) Institutional arrangements not working well: R&D links, community-policy links, private-public links New institutional arrangements and partnerships Institutional change New methods, approaches and skills developed
Through iterative field research and reflection and with assistance of a facilitator (Jurgen Hagmann) those involved in AHI decided to take an integrated approach with the following dimensions. We now refer to this as an INRM approach integrated natural resource management, and have accepted and use the following definition which illustrates the multifaceted nature of the approach. (The term IAR4D came out of this)
3.1.2
INRM definition:
INRM is an approach that integrates research on different types of natural resources into stakeholder-driven processes of adaptive management and innovation to improve livelihoods, agroecosystem resilience, agricultural productivity and environmental services at community, ecoregional and global scales of intervention and impact (Thomas, 2002). If INRM were widely applied, researchers would: x Apply their skills to broader topics collective action for environmental management and conflict resolution; managing a production-market chain; influencing policy makers. x Use integrated, multi-disciplinary teams for solving complex issues. x Employ strategic partnerships, facilitate dialogue and improve inter-institutional links with development organizations, policy makers and the private sector x Work at multiple levels and scales with a wide variety of actors and differentiate problems for various strata and conditions.
10
x x x
Utilize a range of participatory methods that foster stewardship of natural resources, are inclusive of women and the poor, value local knowledge, and build local capacity. Use experiential learning and systematic monitoring for continuous progress for innovation and application of the approach. Balance environmental management and enterprise development concerns
The implementers of AHI recognized a need for a mind-set change or paradigm shift as follows: 3.1.3 x x x x What is different? Study to understand Farm level intervention Reductionist focus Training / teaching Getting into the system to change it (action research) Multiple levels of analysis and intervention Approach system from social organization and institutional perspectives Learning and adaptation
This needed a rethinking of both the culture and organization of science (research) BUT it was important to BUILD ON and not replace previous experience and approaches. AHI, again with facilitation and contributions of Jurgen Hagmann and many others having a lot of field experience and through reflection developed the wheel of elements needed for effective INRM processes to work to ensure the contributions of Research for Development. This wheel needs, at one time or another, the implementation of various strategies and practices that ensure that these elements or cornerstones are present. We arrived at these cornerstones in the following way: 1) Creation of an impact assessment framework generated by asking: If successful, what would farmers / farmer organizations be doing or be doing differently? And given this, what would researchers and research managers be doing or doing differently? This generated impact areas, such as Farmer groups manage themselves effectively and can resolve conflicts; Farmers and researchers are partners in technology generation; Researchers actively build partnerships; Research managers put into place incentive systems that motivate researchers. Each impact area has indicators, that is, what would you see if this is in place. 2) The impact assessment framework is used to evaluate a number of cases in the field. 3) The information from the field cases is synthesized so as to distil: success factors, gaps, challenges. The success factors were clustered and labelled as the cornerstones presented in the wheel below. Each cornerstone is made up of elements or key ingredients that are part of the functioning of the cornerstone. In turn, each element can be implemented using various strategies or processes, which can be described in detail as sets of implementation tools or methods. For more information about this methodology, mail to Dr. Jrgen Hagmann JHagmann@aol.com or Ann Stroud, A.Stroud@cgiar.org The Learning Wheel can be used in a number of ways: 1) As a knowledge management tool where best practices, strategies and implementation tools and methods can be accumulated over time. 2) As a management monitoring tool to serve as a way to check on implementation methods and progress in generating or using these methods 3) As a conceptual guide to assist stakeholders involved in visualizing what it takes to implement a more complex processes where different roles and responsibilities are taken by different actors. 4) As a facilitation tool to assist managers or leaders who are facilitating the process at large to ascertain what is needed when and by whom.
11
The cornerstones or elements do not need to be managed simultaneously, but come into play as a R&D process is being implemented. Attention can be given to either the weakest cornerstone OR to the one needed at a given point in time. 3.1.4 Elements needed to Manage an Effective INRM process
Continuous M&E for learning & performance improvement & sustainability at all levels
Effective crossdisciplinary adaptive learning teams of R&D agents
Effective & efficient research management system & organization performance
Strategic partnerships & linkages with clear institutional arrangements among stakeholders Conducive policy framework & institutional frame
Availability of adequate operational resources Effective communication strategy
Management of an effective INRM process that achieves impact

Effective scaling up strategy building on potential successes & strategic entry-points
Effective facilitation & coordination of interactive processes at different levels
Farmers well articulate interests, needs & demands fuelling research agenda problem/opportunity focus Market chain perspective in research (production to consumption) Local / farmer organizational capacity for collective action & self organization
Short- & long-term gains through the process itself (no handouts) Access to knowledge, technical innovations & options & information Farmer innovation & experimentation capacity
12
3.1.5
What is the effect?
INRM is an approach that creates room for researcher to get into the system to study, understand and change for the better. INRM works from farm level introduction and is subjected to multiple levels of analysis, takes care of the reductionist focus and embraces complexity in the system. INRM moves away from approaching the system from the biophysical perspective to the social organisation of the system. It emphasises learning and adaptation other than training. The approach encourages rethinking the culture of the organisation while building on the previous approaches. The role and background of AHI is thus anchored on exploiting cross-cultural themes in NRM. 3.2 Experiences from ICRA on agricultural research for development (ARD)
Richard Hawkins explained the applied meaning of the concept of Agricultural Research and development (ARD). ARD responds to multiple objectives like poverty reduction, food security and competitiveness while maintaining use of resources ARD works through participation of different stakeholders. It is therefore essential to know how to work in and/or with other different teams. A different focus is required to do this. It demands change of policies and strategies. We need to know who is making decisions and whether the strategies adopted can work. We have to look at some of the modification and understand the concept to systems work and multi-stakeholder research. Reactions and issues on approaches; We need multiple levels of analysis in order to relate to the themes developed by NARO. Both INRM and ARD approaches emphasise team development at different levels i.e. NARI-ZARI etc. levels. On the durability of the approaches; are all the approaches sustainable? It is important to see if the approaches can help you get where you want to go. Internalise and respond according to your situation (but keep the dynamics). What does one do when the policies, which affect your way of doing things, come from above/outside? Stakeholder involvement e.g. in Ethiopia, problems at the zonal level should be integrated into themes.
3.3
Example of competence development for new ways of learning and doing research at MAK: context and design issues Presented by Paul Kibwika Background
3.3.1
The current challenges of agricultural development demand that African Universities produce a new type of graduates with capacity to: x x x x x Integrate disciplines and skills Network with Stakeholders Be critical and creative thinkers Develop themselves and others Work with communities in a visionary and proactive manner
13
3.3.2
How can this be done?
Eastern and Southern African Deans of Faculties of Agric. and Forum grantees at Bellagio: x Agreed on the need to change curricula x Recognized that change in curriculum alone will not change much because even the lecturers lacked these skills, hence the need for retooling 3.3.3 x x The Pilot
A pilot project to reorient lecturers started in Makerere University with 26 lecturers from the Faculties of Agriculture, Veterinary Medicine, Forestry & Nature Conservation and Education. Reorientation uses Personal Mastery (PM) as a vehicle for imparting the required skills
Aim of the pilot Impart into the lecturers and ultimately students: x New ways of thinking about their subject and students x Competence in new, diverse relevant training & assessment methods x How to integrate biophysical and social sciences x Respect farmers views, needs and knowledge x Skills for team development and multidisciplinary approaches & project management. skills. 3.3.4 Design of the learning program
14
3.4.5
Expected Impacts
A pool of resource persons with good ability to execute participatory action research and training A wealth of tools and information on soft skills development in the context of African universities An approach for scaling up the program within and without MAK 3.5 Experiences of the ARDC approach
Rogers shared an ARDC approach, which involved; x Training the ARDC staff on Farmer Participatory Research, Participatory Market Research, Farming Systems Research x Conducting planning meeting at a multi-disciplinary forum and collecting required broad information from communities on their problems and priorities x Developed checklist for collecting information from farmers x Pre-tested the instruments x Collected information on priority commodities, sources of livelihoods, priority constraints (e.g. the year of moringa), coping mechanisms, emerging issues, gender analysis-socioeconomic aspects, market surveys and research x Report writing, stakeholder workshops and process feedback 3.5.1 x x x Achievements of the ARDC Approach
Partnerships created with other institutions and NGO's like CIAT, Action Aid Masindi, HOOFA etc. Better linkages with farmers have been developed and the Center Manager of Bulindi is now informally recognized amongst farmers. Farmers have become more involved in market research and between 8-10 farmer groups are conducting participatory market research (PMR).
Challenges still exist. Farmers were used to receiving inputs or subsidies from government or extension, but there is now evident change in emphasis on giving farmers handouts and/or training materials. Reactions and issues Q: How do partnerships develop? A: Partnerships are sometimes developed from individual i.e. one on one interaction or understanding and/or signing agreement or memorandum of understanding with different institutions and NGOs.
15
4.0
4.1
Some elements of personal development

Emotional intelligence:
Paul presented the key elements of emotional intelligence. Emotional intelligence is about understanding our emotions and how these influence out behaviour. How we control ourselves to perform in teams is highly dependent on our awareness of emotional intelligence. This subject therefore has high relevance to the NWDB in NARO as researchers are expected to better team players and perform as a team
Emotional intelligence
Self awareness Ability to recognize our moods, emotions and drivers plus their effects on others Self regulation -Ability to control and re-direct disruptive impulses and moods (how do you respond to people who are emotionally charged?) -Propensity to suspend judgement (dont draw very quick conclusion e.g. I think he/she is mad! Take time to understand underlying reasons, or where he/she is coming from) Empathy -Ability to understand the emotional make up of other people -Skill of treating people according to their emotional reactions Motivation -Passion to work beyond money and status (vision) -Propensity to pursue goals with energy and persistence (never giving up but always persisting) Social skills -Efficiency in managing relationships and relations -Ability to find a common ground and building rapport (e.g. partnerships)
16
Involves -Self confidence -Realistic self assessment (strength and weaknesses) -Self depreciation (taking note of your ego, e.g. do you accept that maybe what I say is not always right? If you step back, it gives you room to learn) -sense of humor (essential in keeping the group alive)
Involves -Trust worthiness and integrity (trust that one has the ability to behave well) -Confront with dignity -Openness to change (give room for imperfectness)
Involves -Expertise in building and retaining talent -Cross-cultural sensitivity -Service to clients and customer
Involves -Strong desire to achieve (see change) -Being optimistic even in the face of failure (e.g. politicians) -Organizational commitment (concern for the image of your organization e.g. NARO or MAK and it takes a lot of energy. Treat it like your very own)
Involves -Effectiveness in leading change (its not about technologies or markets alone and requires a holistic approach) -Expertise in building and leading teams (leadership)
Reactions and issues The personal development (emotional intelligence) was very exciting, why didnt the facilitators start with it on the very first day? Can't some people pretend to have the different qualities presented under emotional intelligence? It's not always easy to sustain pretence forever e.g. where fieldwork is concerned. You only pretend for a while then your true character comes out. How do you measure intelligence if it cannot be quantified? "Not everything that counts can be counted and not everything that is counted counts" . Self-regulation involves maintaining self-esteem and has the element of emotional attachment to it. It's important for individuals not to always be so submissive and be trampled upon. Whenever you stand up for your rights, always make the rest of your team know the importance of not infringing on your privacy. Motivation is hinged on the satisfaction one derives from doing his or her job. A hypothetical question was asked on what kind of choice one would make if all jobs paid 10 dollars. Leaders must encourage young graduates to be more creative and it can be achieved through opening up. The younger cadres get encouraged if they learn how far their leaders have come and that they too had difficulties along the way. Creativity is enhanced by experimentation i.e. trying out new things or ideas. In many organizations, there is no motivation to experiment. There are no incentives e.g. in the public service where it is very common to come across expressions like "that is the way we do things here" (by J rgen). Leaders should allow other team members to take the reigns too. Rules that govern organizational work procedures only kill the organization. When employees are suppressed they become compliant, but not creative. People resign when they are controlled.
17
4.2
The JoHari window The Johari window further revels the different personalities an individual has and how these personalities influence our interactions and relationships. Understanding these personalities and learning how to deal with them is the basis for team building. Maria introduced the concept of JoHari window developed by Joe and Harry as important in understanding people because all individuals have their private personalities that can not be seen easily. 1. The public person is the openly presented aspects of oneself and the individual may get feedback from aspects of his/her behaviour from others. 2. The blind spot are behavioural patterns, habits, attitudes etc. that others see in a person that an individual is not aware of. The people who see the behaviours make you aware of them and you improve on them and reduce the spot. 3. The private person is the characteristics not known to others but to the individual him/herself. This is a behavioural tactic used as a defence mechanism and makes one less able to work in a team. 4. The unconscious person is unknown to the individual and are the needs, drivers, emotions etc. which influence an individual's behaviour. The unconscious person is discovered through psychotherapy, motivation, self-development etc.
18
Reactions and issues From the four windows, can we say the public person is the best and that we should try to enlarge it? Wouldn't it be advisable to keep some weaknesses in the private person secret? Open up, unless the weakness is so terrible. "We use so much energy to hide our weaknesses" Emily T. This is because you will be constantly worried about what whoever enters your office knows about what is in your office. When you try to improve on your weaknesses, you in effect narrow the blind spot consequently an indication that you accept criticism. It is important to reflect on and take other people's comments seriously. The culture of mistrust in organizations is so deeply rooted and leads to inefficiency in staff performance. Managers and other staff spend a lot of energy trying to keep things within the organization and lose focus of their mandate. Managers and supervisors could create bondage if they shared their experiences. Concern. What happens when supervisors employ spies to report back on what is going on within the organization as a feedback mechanism? No one can ever tell you everything that happens in sectors of the organization that is why you employ spies in the first place. With time, other employees get to know who the spies are and become extremely cautious and filter whatever they say. It therefore depends on how feedback is given. If its a sensitive issue, feedback is appropriately offered at one on one basis, e.g. between the boss and junior. Feedback can be given within the group of peers who understand the concept. Participants in a workshop can leave out negative feedback to facilitators, but individuals may loosen up when they do it on a one on one basis. What do you do when you are not comfortable with the individual offering feedback? It is important to differentiate between the messenger and the message. Why do you only ask for feedback when you feel something is wrong? Feedback is intended to bring awareness on an issue and to help an individual improve on behaviour or activity.
4.3
The concept of feedback
Feedback is one way of improving our personalities and therefore our productivity especially in teams. It is a way of dealing with the windows described in the Johari window to increase out public personalities. Richard Miiro emphasized how essential feedback is in helping us to improve on our work and behaviours. Giving and receiving feedback for personal development however, follows some rules.
19
4.3.1
Rules for giving and receiving feedback
4.3.2
Practicing giving and receiving feedback
Participants were asked to their neighbours and give them feedback based on the interactions they had the previous day. The emphasis was on giving positive feed back only following the rules of giving and receiving feedback. The participants found the exercise interesting and motivating, the problem though was that they had not known much about each other since they had only been together for two days. Some people did not have much to give as genuine and constructive feedback.
20
5.0
5.1
Experiences in the new way of doing business

Criteria for self assessment in the NWDB
These criteria were developed in Mukono and Jinja workshops. They specify what the NARO scientists would do/do differently if the PMA and NARS policies were put in place. A summary of the 13 point criteria is outlined below. 1. 2. 3. Researchers together with farmers and stakeholders continuously assess and prioritise needs, opportunities and identify a high-quality research demand Researchers pro-actively seek and strengthen partnerships, collaboration and networking to increase plurality in research Researchers develop flexible and dynamic research agendas responding to stakeholders demands while integrally incorporating market-focus, sustainable natural resource management and food security, interdisciplinarity and social differentiation Researchers engage with farmers and other stakeholders in participatory research processes as a major approach responding to demand and build joint ownership and accountability to the clients and local authorities Researchers engage with farmers and other stakeholders in integrated natural resource management as a foundation for market-oriented agriculture Researchers integrate market research with a focus on market chain integration into all research work Researchers engage into policy research in the context of market chain integration, NRM and food security Researchers ensure the availability of technologies to a wide array of stakeholders and users Researchers support private sector, and other clients through information, training, facilitation, backstopping and skill building in production, marketing, value adding Researchers are continuously improving their strategy and approaches to enhance commercialization of agriculture towards marketing and exports Researchers monitor the impact of their and others intervention on a differentiated clientele and use the results to inform the process and adapt/replan their intervention Researchers and management regularly assess their competence and continuously seek to improve it in response to emerging challenges and demands Research management develops and implements strategies for attracting and retaining high quality and performing staff
4.
5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
10. 11.
12. 13.
21
5.2
Self-assessment in the NWDB
Using the 13 item criteria of what NARO scientists would do differently if the PMA and NARS policy were put into practice? (Annex I), Richard Hawkins divided participants into three groups representing NARI, ARDC and MAK. They were given handouts with the 13 item criteria for reference. The group task was to assess themselves as an institution on a scale of 1-10, how well they think they have performed on each criterion Group task; Rapporteurs, observers and moderators were nominated from each group. Before starting on the assignments, participants were concerned how they would be able to score the activities and/or reach consensus given the diversity in disciplines, NARIs, etc. The facilitator responded that all institutions carry out research and participants should reflect on those activities and score accordingly. 5.2.1 Group I report - NARIs Facilitator Rapoteur Observer/visualizer
Dr. Wanyera Solomon Ogwal John Okorio
The facilitator asked all the group members to score individually and the final score determined by the mode. Group members defended their scores to the group and this made the process even interesting and informative. Point number 9 and 11 scored them best. Activities performed best Point number 11 was selected and the case study of the National Cassava Research was discussed i.e. researchers monitor the impact of theirs, and others' intervention on a differentiated clienteles and use results to inform and adopt/re-plan their intervention.
22
Factors for success; x x x x x x x x Good leadership in the program that encouraged young scientists to display their talents and play lead roles on a rotational basis Team work spirit which also encouraged productive interaction between scientists, technician and/or support staff Multi-disciplinarily that encouraged scientist to get a feel of one anothers discipline Partnership nationally (with research and educational institutions, ministries, NGOs, community based organizations etc.) and internationally (research organizations like IITA, CIAT and development organizations) And most importantly, the role of cassava in the food system (second most important food crop in Uganda) Donor support and funding Farmer participatory research approaches used in technology evaluation, multiplication and dissemination The programme linked farmers with researchers and the market
Poorly performed activities Point number 13 was rated worst i.e. research management develops and implements strategies for attracting and retaining high quality and performing staff. Factors for failure; x x Poor remuneration and performance based reward system (motivation) lacking Terms of employment reference are obscure/ unclear. Within the research system, there are non-core NARO staffs who are equally competent but are paid on project basis and their job security situations is extremely fragile and do not enjoy other employment benefits the core scientists have Group II report - ZARIs
Score 1 2 2 2 3 3 4 1 3 3 3 2 3 Remarks All ZARI carrying out with results Involved to a great deal Involved to a great deal Involved to a great deal Only beginning to get involved Only beginning to get involved Not involved All ZARI carry out with results Only beginning to get involved Only beginning to get involved Only beginning to get involved Involved to a great extend Same as above 9&10
5.2.2
Activity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Case Study: Banana Improvement technology Farmer: Realized a problem of poverty Initiated a need to get researcher to help the address their poor yields of bananas Political: MP joined farmers Formed CBO Made contact with NARO NARO: Management technologies Training & demonstration
23
Farmer: Provided group labour Allow visits by other farmers Success factors x x x x x x Ownership by farmers Farmers team-work Multi-stakeholder participation Availability of technology form NARO- with room for flexibility allowing farmer innovations Availability of funds from NARO Ready market for bananas
Limiting factors Not a direct mandate Lack of capacity Failure to recruit and retain social scientists (the should be the one doing the policy research) 5.2.3
Activity 1 2
Group III report - MAK

Score 2 3 Remarks Most projects in MAK are done on individual basis + all these aspects are covered in these projects. General scoring brings this to 2 Partnerships present but participation almost absent (not proactive) x Used as a catalyst for funding x Force into building partnerships by funders Some individuals doing it however more are getting on board presently Most projects have fixed objectives + time frame thereby limiting flexibility Some are doing it Some do it, other do not Focus is always on production+ impact (presence to be felt in the community) Always ignored Done but with small % of stakeholders. Tendency to generalize due to limited resources Researchers go out but integration of entrepreneurship skills very limited Curriculum development on-going, improvement in teaching and research methods (action &client oriented) Monitor + evaluate but rarely use outcomes as input to next step(s) Often not participating Needs improvement There is no central research management mechanism/body in MAK
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
4 2 2 4 4 2 3 1 2 2 14
Success Case: Development of soil test Kit Developed /implemented in Phases: Phase I: Concept note developed and presented to I@mak.com (from experience, previous studies and literature) Feasibility study/scouting districts with known soil fertility problems Concept note shared with stakeholders to get their views. Redefinition and full development of proposal (accepted and funded) Soil test kit (technology) developed Technology development by scientists Stakeholders introduced to the technology Stakeholders (extension workers) disseminated/implemented/tried out
Phase II:
Phase III: Phase IV:
24
Phase V: Follow-up Scientists follow up in field to find out applicability and suitability Scientist discovered some aspects not applicable + redefined Follow-up continues on redefined technologies Success factors 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Involvement of stakeholders in most of the stages Responding to the demands and interest (felt needs) of farmers Targeted commercial crops (e.g., maize (Iganga), Banana (Rakai, Masaka) Follow up Commitment &interest of scientists in the problem Motivations (money for I@mak.com). Confidence and competence in doing the research.
Limiting factors 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 5.3 Lack of competence and deep understanding Lack of interest No a common issues No motivation The fear that it is more politics (perception problems) Cocooning / boxing ourselves Towards key challenges
Based on their experiences and on the better understanding of the NWDB gained in the workshop, the participants were assigned the task of identifying the critical factors for success of the NWDB. This was done in groups and the challenges were presented on cards. The cards were clustered on the board and the clusters assigned appropriate titles that represented the broad challenges in the NWDB.
25
The major challenges were:

x x x x x x x x x How to develop effective partnerships How to motivate human resource for effective performance How to encourage farmers participation in research process How to work in and maintain multidisciplinary teams How to generate interest in policy research How to develop a dynamic human resource How to source funding How to inculcate / impart a culture of transparency in the system How to write competitive research proposals How to improve monitoring and evaluation How to impart multidisciplinary skills
The detailed elements of these challenges are presented in the table below.
26
MAJOR CHALLENGES TO PUT NWDB INTO PRACTICE

How to work in and maintain multidisciplinar y teams How to generate interest in policy research How to streamline training of personnel How to change the mindset of people How to ensure a well-linked and transparent management system Improve monitoring and evaluation How to develop a dynamic human resource How to source funding How to improve monitoring and evaluation How to impart multidisciplinar y skills
How to develop effective partnership s How to develop team work How to inculcate / impart a culture of transparency in the system Develop a culture of transparency
How to motivate human resource for effective performance How to motivate scientists for performance To work as a team How to generate interest for policy research How to get the motivation to do policy research How to ensure sustainabl e financial resources Generate and sustain research funds How to write competiti ve research proposals How to write competitiv e proposals How to develop competen ce / skills for competitiv e funding e.g. NARS. How to improve management systems
How to encourage farmers participation in research process Enhance farmer participation in technology development
How to acquire skills to do policy research
How to develop strong and sustainable partnerships How to identify competent / skilled collaborators in policy research
How to motivate and retain human resource
How to involve farmers in the research process
How to impart multidisciplinary skills into existing staff
Strengthen partnerships / networks (including private sector)

How to form and maintain multidisciplinary teams How to integrate biophysical and social skills
How to attract and retain competent human resource
How to exploit indigenous knowledge in research
How to manage the systems in a participatory manner
How to incorporate policy issues in research agenda
Scale out to new / other disciplines
How to build and sustain partnerships
Motivate staff
How to develop effective teams in the partnerships How to bring together the various stakeholders into research
27
5.4
What we want to achieve in this learning process
Given the challenges, it was then necessary to reflect on what we actually wanted to achieve in the learning process. The participants discussed in buzz groups and presented their outcomes on cards which were clustered on the board. The main areas of preferred learning were: x x x x x x x x Team Work Personal Competence Managing Organizational Change Performance Management Managing partnerships Action research Bringing policy into research Proposal development
28
6.0
6.1
Getting into systems

Visualizing partnerships Six groups of 3 participants were formed and given tasks to produce diagrams that visualize partnerships. The diagrams drawn were as follows:
6.1.1
Characteristics of the diagrams After presentations of the charts that represent partnerships, in plenary, participants were asked to list words that best described the diagrams they presented. These were written on cards and pinned on the board as shown in the chart. This was an exercise to introduce the participants to systems as the works used to describe the diagrams also described systems.
29
6.2
Types of systems
J rgen made a presentation on three types of systems: the technical, biological, and social systems. The technical is a simple mechanical system. It is an input-output system and the outcome of the system is easily predictable. A simple example of a technical system is a car. This concept of technical systems was adapted to economic systems and enterprises; as well a ecological systems where the earth is looked as a living system. The social system is the most complex system because of the complexity of humans. It is unpredictable, dynamic and cannot actually be designed. The behaviour of individuals is influenced by many factors in the system and every individual has an influence on the system.
6.2.1 x
Mapping social systems
Group Task
In small groups of 6, discuss reflexively on social systems to which you belong. Create a pictorial diagram of the systems to be presented on a flip chart
30
These diagrams represent the different social systems where the participants belong. This was an outcome of group task above. The mappings represent systems that people belong to. These directly or indirectly influence their job performance.
6.2.2
The system game
The systems game was used to illustrate the complexity of social systems. Two main actors in the game were the "manager" and the "advisor". Two participants volunteered to act these roles. The two were taken out of the room and given the tasks to use all possible means to get all the participants our of the room. The participants who remained in the room were divided into three groups and each group was give a different set of instruction on how to behave when the manager and his advisor come in the room. The instructions were as follows: Group 1: Please do only what you are told if the boss explains nicely what it is good for so that you understand why you have to do it. Group 2: Please do only what you are told if the boss addresses you individually as a person. If he does not, do slowly and gently the opposite.
31
Group 3: Please do only what you are told if the boss says please, i.e. uses the word please explicitly. 6.2.3 Processing the system game
How the manager and adviser felt x x x x x x x Helpless Were initially sure their plan would work Tried force, persuasion, bribe Failed We thought they were one group We did not know what to expect Frustrated
Comments from the staff x x x x x x x x The manager and adviser never shared with us what they wanted to achieve They were not convincing, polite and not addressing us as individuals We followed instructions like robots They came as bosses, did not lower themselves Felt sorry for them Felt bribed, looked at as someone who is poor They were slaves of their plans Felt my solidarity becoming stronger with the group I belonged to.
6.3
Innovation systems debrief
This task was intended to make participant think of systems in a holistic manner using an innovations change in the system as an entry point. The outcomes of this exercise demonstrate that change is not just incidental change, it involves a lot of dynamics in the system where different components of the system interact and influence each other. The innovations systems illustrated by the groups are presented:
32
6.3.1
Shift from cotton and millet led production to sweet potato
Solomon explained the diagram on behalf of the group that the factors that contributed to the change were: x The historical account of cotton production. When the colonial administration governed Uganda, they introduced cotton to the Northern Uganda and coffee to the south-central parts. Cooperative unions were established to buy cotton from the farmers. The cooperative unions received crop finance from the government to run the cooperatives. The actors/partners in the cotton industry consisted of farmers, government of Uganda, researchers, lint and textile exporters and transporters. The cooperative union incurred a lot of debt with government. When government stopped financing these cooperative unions, they collapsed. Therefore the cooperative unions failed to pay for farmers produce. Since the early 1980s, some farmers are still waiting to be paid to date! Farmers shifted to sweet potato as a cash crop because there was a market for it in the urban cities. Individual middle men/traders purchased the sweet potato directly from farmers at farm gates. The actors involved were the farmers, researchers (Namulonge Agricultural and Animal Research Institute) National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS), local and central government, traders, consumers, transporters and development partners. The strength of linkages between different actors is shown by the thickness of the arrows. Processing techniques for sweet potato is being introduced and the system is changing rapidly. But cotton production is rising again and looks very promising thus showing the complexity of the system. Change from indigenous to exotic dairy production
6.3.2
Hilda explained the diagram Background Previously, the livestock sector in the southern rangeland of Uganda consisted of indigenous cattle only. These stocks were not very productive but improvement of milk production became a major concern. Since the 1950s, the government policy to address low production first looked/evaluated what was available with farmers in order to intervene and contribute to high yields and quality. Therefore, external experts were invited to advise accordingly. The actors in the dairy sector expanded to include farmers, government, external partners and donors, research (breeding centre), extension, dairy cooperation (processors), input suppliers, and consumers. Today, exotic cattle keeping has expanded beyond the Ankole, Masaka cattle keeping corridor to the many areas of Uganda. Landlords are hiring out land to farmers for expanded dairy farming. Microfinance institutions have penetrated rural areas as investors on the invitation of government in order to target farmers who want to
33
increase dairy farming activities. Farmers were interested in improving yields, affected by external influences and included in the policy design by government. The extension workers were also included in government policy, affected by the activities on farm as dictated by the market and got interested for instance in pasture improvement. Milk exporters were interested in high quality and milk produce to make profits. 6.3.3 Shift from indigenous sorghum to epuripur (improved) production
Geoffrey explained the diagram Factors that contributed The white sorghum Epuripur is used as raw material for brewing beer by the brewery industries. Epuripur has substituted some of the materials originally imported to produce some beer brands, thus saving foreign exchange. The crop is a source of income for farmers, the brewery industry, local and central government. The actors include the farmers who are central (growers), Serere Agricultural Research Institute (SAARI) and ICRISAT (variety development), extension workers (bringing the variety to farmers), traders, input suppliers, consumers, central and local government (tax at all levels). The blue, red and black arrows show the level of interaction and involvement. 6.3.4 Shift from cotton to coffee production inregion
Charles explained the group diagram This was mainly due to the government that was in place i.e. during Amins regime when the political atmosphere was tense. Many cooperative unions became dysfunctional including the lint marketing board. The actors in the cotton production system included the lint marketing board, textile production industries, cotton cooperative unions and ginneries, world market, researchers, extension workers, government and farmers. The breakdown in the cotton industry was also fuelled by, influx in supply of cheap polyester materials from outside Uganda and the affordability of second hand clothes. Farmers moved to coffee growing and now banana. 6.3.5 Shift from cotton to sunflower production
The system shows two things (1) the linear process where the red line represented the cotton production period and shows how the central bank released financial resources to the cooperative banks that in turn financed the primary societies who finally paid the farmers. (2) Then the green line shows the transitional process to sunflower production and utilization where liberalization of the market played a key role. The line shows the increase in number of players in the system where government had direct link with farmers, the private sector, Uganda oil seed processors, traders, consumers, local government etc.
34
6.3.6
Shift from traditional to clonal coffee production
Ricky explained the diagram There was a drastic decline in the yields of traditional coffee and farmers became very concerned. Government became interested in the development of the crop and established the Uganda Coffee Development Authority. Ministry of agriculture was involved, NARO, NGOs, community based organizations all supported the move to clonal coffee. Donors did not have direct link with farmers, the government was linked to farmers through NARO, and NGOs assisted farmers directly in acquiring seeds mainly. The farmers and coffee dealers were affected by the coffee wilt. When farmers shifted to growing clonal coffee, there was increased supply because of higher yield of the new variety and prices went down at farm level. 6.3.7 Shift from rice to vanilla production
Peter explained the diagram Rice growing was a tedious process, which involved clearing, swamps and forests. Landlords would hire property to tenants to tend it. The shift to vanilla was because the crop is of very high value and can grow in a bushy environment. The actors include the farmers, researchers, and traders and should have also directly involved NEMA but are not the case. Discussions on Innovation systems What can we say about the innovation process? What did we learn from the exercise? People have to come and work together in cooperation in order to succeed. There must also be a driving force to support this cooperation e.g. market, policy, disaster, and clear potential benefit etc. If one or a combination of these forces brings about change, what does this mean for a researcher? If the cotton researchers had a better concept on what was happening to the cotton industry, could it have affected the research the research towards the crop? Cotton has been a very political crop in Ugandas history and government-established committee to see the development in the crop. What sort of innovation is required to make the system progress in a better direction? Market and social research is necessary for following the changes in the trend of the crop. For instance in the case of the dairy improvement, who are the beneficiaries of this research?
35
What should our research be like if we want to be client oriented? Who are driving the needs for sweet potato? Traders and consumers drive the shift to sweet potato but not farmers alone or only. Research can be frustrating because not everybody appreciates the value the effort you put in to bring about positive change. The kind of questions we should ask. x x x x x Do farmers benefit or lose always in the same way? What happens to farmers without physical infrastructure to access the market like the matooke farmers deep in Kyazanga Uganda during harvest period? What about farmers with more land and able to rent it out to other farmers? What are the factors that make them shift to more promising crops or systems? What happens to the labourers replaced by mechanized production?
Researchers must always look at the position of individuals in society, resources available to them and the gender discussion when looking at the system. x What do systems designed by different groups say about the farmer box and how we treat them as stakeholders? Farmers are many stakeholders that fall into different groups within the system and have different interest and are affected differently. x What have we learned about innovations as a process? Innovation system is a consortium of many stakeholders not only composed of government and researchers. It is therefore important to understand the innovation system from a wider context because there is the margin of the system crumbling. Emerging Issues x x x x x x x x x x x 6.4 We need a mechanism for negotiating teams and defining the issues We need to know the dynamism of staying together We need to know and/or understand the availability of team members -How much time can they avail? -When they are likely to be available? We need a plan of action We need to understand how we shall initiate the process of forming teams We need to know who will lead the team We need to know how much the transaction cost will be of involving members The whole system of NARO will be dependent on collaboration There is the possibility of belonging to one or more themes/ teams as demonstrated on the exercise on systems that we can belong to different social groups We need to clearly define the roles of different team members We need to keep all the contact addresses Systems change
In explaining systems change, J rgen referred participants to the challenges. Partnerships innovations depend on the system we belong to for instance the way we look at NARO at internal level and how we interact in it.
36
In the cotton, millet and sweet potato system, how do you characterize it, and the same for other production system? 6.4.1 Driving forces in the innovations change Positive 1. Market Negative organization of marketing systems
Positive 2. Policy Negative 3. Technology and the opportunities they offer 4. Political conditions, for instance in Tanzania due of stability, cooperatives were transformed because farmers were better organized. 5. Collaboration between different elements within the system 6. Suffering or discomfort 7. Ambition (failed aspiration) or perspective in life e.g. the story of tourist and the fisherman At individual level, go back and analyze and see where you have changed either as a person or group. The fundamental ingredient, catalyst or driver for change is to create discomfort. When you work in an organization e.g. NARO, how do you create discomfort? Create ambition. Why has NARO been forced to go through all these changes? The organizational mindset was not changing and there has been a lot of external influence to drive the changes. 8. Crisis leads to adaptation to changing local or global circumstances. Crisis also offers opportunities. For instance, some organizations stir crises to create room for employment changes, thus, if you dont manage change will manage you Crisis can be avoided by the organization developing the capacity to adapt to the changing environment. This is an internal driven change that reduces the shocks of externally driven change. Usually externally driven change is more likely when it reaches a crisis level. 6.5 How to induce change in a social system J rgen explained the possible mechanisms that can be used to induce change. Change the people e.g. ILRI. Change the rules, e.g. the feeling in NARO. How do you get people to see things differently, i.e. change from commodity to project based structures, adjustment to competitive grants, decentralization and lumping institutions together? The question is, can we change perceptions in NARO with the learning cycles? The scientists may government strategy instruments
37
change, but what about the technicians who are in the field and doing business as usual? Change the pattern of interaction e.g. NARI, ZARI and MAK linkage Change the systems environment Change the speed of evolution, become proactive, bring in new perspective, act and reflect and take another step, build the capacity to adapt to changes and opportunities as they come, even for MAK, develop a continuous learning and change. The mechanism to adapt to change is already existent within NARO because of the manpower it has. Bring on board NAADS and extension workers to learn together with NARO staff. Issues from plenary discussion What are the effects of induced change against desired change? It goes back to organizational mindset. Farmers have been working with researchers and many groups on crops and issues, wont they give up in yet another change due to fatigue and challenge to cope with the new system? Farmers may become confused, fed up and resist because so many things are going on. Refer to the earlier submission that when engaging with farmers, the potential benefits of the initiative must be clearly explained to them because many other groups also approach them and will continue to do so. NARO may have changed, but what about its other partners e.g. the extension workers may also feel fatigued with one initiative after the other. It is very difficult to cause change but possible to cause shift. We need a strong base and can be achieved by building on the people base. What is therefore our (researcher) role in the change process? We need to intervene and pick up farmers frustration and give it a holistic treatment. When we pick only component of the system and leave out different interest groups, the foundation of intervention becomes weak. Process of change in social organizational systems
This is a general model illustrates the process of change in organisations as social systems. The process is divided into three main phases/stages: The unfreeze, move an freeze stages. At the unfreeze stage, there are two antagonistic forces; one pulling and the other pushing for the change. Here the systems is being exposed to the new ideas, there is developing of alternatives and accepting insecurity and change.
38
In the move stage, there is taking action/implementing the change and this is usually accompanied by fear and anger, grief about leaving the old ways of doing things, then acceptance and when hope develops, then people engage in the change process. However at this level there can break off of those who do not feel comfortable with the change. In the freeze stage, the organization reaches a new equilibrium stage and the emphasis is avoidance of roll-back by consolidating changes through small adjustments in the system. Relating to the change process The participants discussed the task in the chart in groups and presented their outcomes on cards that were clustered on the board. The clusters were assigned appropriate titles as follows: Understand stages of change processes x It is complex to change system, it must first be understood x Be considerate to different client groups (work with those who support your initiative and be patient x x x with those who oppose) Sensitize the different communities in order to cause awareness Clearly define roles of partners Engage them to get a common goal
Change factors x Decentralization of services x Research not demand driven x Shelved technologies x Driving forces x Government policies (PEAP, PMA and NARS) NAROs role in change processes x Resisted the process first x There was anxiety and fears x Letting go of the old ways x Acceptance/hope x Future contributions include; commitment to be part of change x Move away from being a victim of change x Open and analytical to clients and change x Identifying the right clients to interact with at all levels x Influencing structure and function of the new organization x Identifying areas and reasons for change with other clients x Share available information with other clients Clients participation in change processes x Involving all stakeholders and developing a common vision x Pulling researchers and clients together x Researchers and clients developing alternatives individually and/or together x Learning from mistakes x Setting rules together x Politicians mobilize with a good will x Extension should go between and follow up with all clients x Farmers should implement and network x Researchers should consolidate group work, avail technicians and monitor different groups and give support
39
Contribution to better change x Develop a weaning mechanism x Develop mechanisms of linking different groups and development x There is need to define the borders of research versus extension mandate not to create friction 6.8 The blanket game
Participants were divided into 3groups of about 8 -10people and given one blanket. They were asked to fold the blanket into half and stand on it. They were asked to fold the blanket again into two without stepping on the floor. Observers were assigned to different groups and asked to share what they saw in the process of group task. The first group was participatory and innovative but they were in a hurry and their blanket was not properly lined. The second group was successful because of good leadership and the third group was totally disorganized and they all kept haggling. 6.8.1 Processing the blanket game
Strategy used The first group appointed a leader, worked as a team, followed instructions, was organized, strategic, innovative, and obedient, reorganized themselves after failed first attempt, and adapted to their situation (fat lined together with small ones). The 2nd and successful group first took time to understand the task, they took long to begin, but one member initiated action and the rest followed suit. Lessons x Where leadership emerged, it demonstrated that people have different talents that can be exploited for the benefit of team work x Size of the team contributes to efficiency x It is important to understand the group task first before embarking on the job x Allow talents to emerge/flourish in a team x Time constraint can make people carry out task in a hurry and it can lead to failure of intended goal
40
7.0
7.1
Introduction to teams
Sharing Experiences of working in teams This exploration of the participants' experiences of working in groups sought to identify some of the success/failure factors of teamwork and what can be learnt from those experiences. The participants pursued this task in groups and came up with the outputs presented in the table below.
Experiences of working in groups

What worked x Smaller teams work better x Higher level of interaction x Progressive report on outputs x Planning together x Good plan on paper x Multi-disciplinarity x Optimism about end results x Pool of experts (crossfertilization) x Division of labour x Motivation x Openness x Leadership x Reviews of work progress x Having a shared vision x Group participation x Commitment of members What didnt work x Difficult to get together if teams are scattered in different places x Many activities running at the same time x Difficulty to detect source of error x Shunning responsibility in the team x Over-burden to initiators x Friction between superior and the inferior x Unequal remuneration x Poor communication x Poor coordination x Domination x Laziness and /or incompetence x Different characters x Personalities x Competing interests Lessons x Timely definition of roles important x Allocate tasks to team members x Team coherence built on transparency x Build a manageable size of a team x The I know it all attitude kills the team x Need for clear terms of reference x Need for appreciation of all in team x Communication and coordination important x Sharing credit for the job done x Appreciation of different skills x Respecting other peoples opinions x Regular reflection and feedback strengthens the team x Transparency x Appreciate that people are different thus strength and weaknesses always there x Good and strong leadership is key x Need for time management x Conflict of interest should be resolved x Support one another x Build trust within the team to be effective
41
Issues from the discussion What is the optimum size for a team to be effective? Depends on the disciplines involved (can go up to 20), but also depends on leadership, task and resources available to the team. There is always need for a critical (analytical) thinking on how many people can accomplish a given task Teamwork requires commitment, how do you know that a potential member is committed? Prior interaction, recommendation, experiences and capability/ competence can help determine a members commitment. Where can we draw the line between willingness and capability to learn on job? Refer to the table above on the second column on the factors that determine success in teamwork. 7.2 Factors for team success
Richard Hawkins presented the key success factors for undertaking the task as: x x x x Shared objectives/purpose Clear objectives Assigned roles/responsibilities Coordination
Team work to accomplish the task requires communication and personal mastery.
7.3
Inter-disciplinary teams;
Advantages x Complimentary (bringing in the cross-fertility) x Creativity due to the consortium of different talents Difficulties x The different value systems fight one another x Different objectives x Different methods of trying to solve the same problem thus complication or duplication x Professionalism reigns (when you bring people together, they all have different concepts to the same thing they are working on) Requirements x Shared objectives purpose, outputs, activities)
42
Shared exceptional framework system (how do you link your discipline to other conceptual framework? What is my role in this innovation system?)
Without a shared framework, teamwork can never be operationalised. 7.4 Research issues at zonal levels Richard Hawkins explained more on research issues and posed questions to provoke discussions. What are the issues that will lead to formation of multi-disciplinary teams (from NAARI, ZARI, MAK and other organizations)? Teams are only formed around issues. The issues are the glue that sticks the teams together? A criteria for selecting a researchable issue that will be the basis for the learning cycle includes: . x The issue of interest to all team members x It should involve all NARO themes x It should be relevant to the mandate of NARI, ZARI and MAK x It should address the whole innovation process x It should have potential for broad impact at zonal and district level Phrase them as research issues in terms of; How to. Issues from plenary discussion. Do we need all the themes? One theme cannot be addressed as a single unit. For instance, marketing milk is only one issue of the larger picture. In agro-ecological zones, some issues were identified with farmers and other key informants, should we build on this information collected to broaden it from innovation perspective? This intervention will build on previous work and therefore, information collected earlier will be useful. How many people have used the concept mapping (Richard H)?
Some of the researchable issued identified for the zones include: x x x How to increase vanilla production in Uganda How to enhance soil and water conservation for improved productivity How to scale up/out use of processed cassava products
43
x x x
How to increase dairy production in the southern rangelands of Uganda How to improve quality and productivity of sweet potato in central Uganda How to produce cotton varieties with high yield and better lint qualities
Richard commended all the issues constructed because they are broad and cover socioeconomic aspects. For instance addressing soil and water conservation does not arise unless farmers benefit from it. There is a link between soil, banana, the market and other factors. When thinking of researchable issues, think of where there are crises. Politicians and researchers have been working at different scales. Politicians tend to capitalize on immediate and physical impact, while researchers aim for the same but as a gradual process through many stages. NARO, MAK and ICRA all want to operationalise this structure, how can this be made to work? All the sectors will be major players. Research is measured in terms of impact, how can we put this into practice? Most importantly, questions should not only arise about research, but on how we can work together. We shall reflect after every workshop to evaluate what worked well and what need to be addressed. We shall work towards making the system work.
Preparation for the visit of leaders to workshop participants Emily was responsible for coordinating issues to be presented to the guests. The following were tabled for thinking through carefully; What do we want to share? How much can we share? We must try to buy in the key leaders and mobilize support from the director general, directors, World Bank etc. Issues for presentation in a gallery walk style; 1. Clear purpose and/or objectives of the learning process, the road map and expected outcomes 2. IAR4D, how it relates to the themes and their operationalization 3. What can we do different? Innovation systems and multi-disciplinarity as prerequisite 4. The challenges and lessons in change in a social system 5. Personal development and feedback 6. What is expected from management in the New Way of Doing Business (NWDB)
7.5
Future NARS
Emily made a presentation that clarified that the future National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) will consist of; x Public Agricultural Research Institutions (PARIs) x Universities x Private sector In the past, each of these organizations would conduct their own research without any mandatory partnership . 7.5.1 Structure and functions General Characteristics: The NARs will be a multidisciplinary organization, with multiple stakeholders and partners. Different levels for different research therefore need a dynamic structure & procedures. There is a team working on the final structure of the NARs and may continue undergoing transformation & growth thus the Structure will depend on and evolve with core functions, desired outputs and impacts
44
There are three levels of functional arrangement: x Decentralised, demand-led research, broad innovation processes at the zonal platform. x Geographically defined domains x Integration of research efforts, x Allow stakeholder participation & innovations x Maintaining mainstream research on national priorities (National) x Technology development x More technical x Production of desired outputs and impacts x Research themes x Integrated projects 7.5.2 x Components of PARI System
Zonal Agricultural research Institutes (ZARIs)
ZARI This will be a Platform where stakeholders demands are articulated and responded to. There will be 6 zonal agricultural research institutes (ZARIs) responsible for; x Down to earth, zonal research x Ensure relevance &effective feedback x Communication channels x Partnerships with district teams x Guide NARIs on problems and needs x Central operation unit for themes 1,2,3,5 7.5.3 x x x x x x x 7.5.4 x x x 7.5.5 Key Functions of ZARIs Zonal research (decentralisation) Integration of NARI-ZARI research and research-extension) Identification of research demand and zonal research agenda Capacity building and backstopping (extension, district research teams) Management of zonal information Quality control of service providers Sourcing funds for research Funding Core funds to justify existence Competitive grants; they will team up with partners (universities, PARIs and the private sector) Generated income from services Management structure
At the moment, all ZARIs have zonal steering committees with core teams comprising of all themes and advisory committees Functional relationships of ZARIs x Contractual and collaborative with NARIs x Mutual collaboration with other service providers at zonal level x Contractual collaboration with service providers for training and with districts for quality control x Most effective research interface,
45
7.5.6 x x x x
Operational approach
Follow IAR4D Facilitate stakeholder platforms for applied & action research Encourage and build capacity for INRM Integration of ZARI and NARI is essential because certain things are addressed better at ZARI and others at NARI level. x Work in tandem to achieve impact x Interdependent partnership x Integrate identified demands and opportunities x Collaborate to enhance innovation system Components of the PARI System
7.5.7 x x
National Agricultural Research Institutes (NARIs) Composition & Functions of NARI x Teams for technology development x Responsible for strategic research on national priorities x Vertical and horizontal integration of research elements x Nurture inter-disciplinary and integrated working system x Explore opportunities through linkages x Maintain high quality science based competence Functions
7.5.8 x x x x x x x x
Development and implementation of performance-based strategic research plan Vertical and horizontal integration of research Development of effective partnerships Clear uptake and scaling up strategies Explore potential opportunities Linkages with external organizations Building capacity of young scientists and private service providers Sourcing for funds Funding
7.5.9 x x x
Core funds Competitive grants Generate own funds
7.5.10 Functional relationships x x x Collaborative, interdependent relationship with ZARI Inter-NARI Collaboration Any actors that may be required to enhance an innovation system
Management & coordination Themes and project x Theme coordination units x Theme leaders from ZARI and NARI x Management of research process across institutes x Regular Review meetings x Project leader
46
x x
Pooling and integration of expertise Responsible for outputs
7.5.11 Management fora x x x Management Committee Managers of ZARIs, NARIs, and themes NARO Secretariat
7.5.12 Capacities and Competences x x x x Integral part of the change process Knowledge, attitude, skills and motivation needed to cope with new set up Learning on job, interaction with colleagues, training Different needs for different levels
Management level x Development for better management performance & team development x Appreciation of change process x Target: up to 25 people/yr. for 5 years Theme level x Competence for enhancing effectiveness of decentralized research x Target: five theme leaders ZARI and NARI levels x Develop capacity to enhance innovation processes and partnership development and interaction across trans-disciplinary teams and institutes x Target: 30 scientists from zonal teams/yr for 5yrs x 24 scientists from NARI x Some potential active partners will also be trained 7.5.13 Considerations for Management Performance-based Common vision of performance x Criteria and indicators x Orientation to defined criteria & indicators x Alignment of resources and structures x M&E and Quality assurance Performance culture & Management x Motivational management (has to be clearly defined) Rewards based on performance x Enhancement of individual growth & development x Staff development plans x Monitoring and feedback x Staff appraisal systems that provide opportunity for career (not judgmental) development for good performers
47
Do you know the staff composition in terms of disciplines at the ZARIs? All ZARIs have to clearly define the expressed needs in their location. So there is no uniformity or criteria in staffing. What are the implications of these structures on the learning cycle? Some issues of concern Who is going to lead? What is binding NARI & ZARI together? How will competitive funding be addressed without friction? Communication on the new NARs not flowing to the lower cadre in NARO, can it be explained to all the employees and the understanding strengthened? Comments. Look at teams working on dissemination or adaptive study instead of problem research. Teams in ZARI are currently working more around adaptation study and dissemination. There is need for a broader ownership. Need for training i.e. unfreeze towards interdisciplinarity? ZARIs have been reduced in number to 6. What will happen to the rest? Not all ZARIs are functional and only one will be dissolved and absorbed as a satellite station for one of the ZARIs. On the issue of competitive funding, are we ready for it? Can we start a national or zonal competitive fund? Competitive funding will be piloted in 2 zones and one proposal is worth $50,000.
48
8.0
8.1
Planning for the field work

Clarifying outputs of field phase1
Richard Hawkins made more clarifications on expectation from field phase. In reference to issues identified in the roadmap to take us forward, we need to plan; 1) How shall we initiate the process of forming inter-institutional learning process? 2) How shall we negotiate the teams and define the central research issue? 3) How shall we define the roles of team members? 4) How shall we keep our teams together and schedule activities? 5) How shall we get the resources to do this?
Group task
Considering what has been done in this workshop 1 and what to be done in field phase one, we should prepare learning teams in mixed group of 5-6 and discuss; (a) What should be the output of field phase one? (b) For each output suggested, what activities (steps) are required to achieve the output?
8.2 Outcomes of the group task
Steps and activities for fieldwork

Outputs x Multi-disciplinary functional teams x Researchable issues identified x Clear roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders defined x Team spirit built/developed x NWDB internalized x Skills for NWDB acquired x Learning process documented x Potential partners identified Activities x Brainstorming on researchable issues x Develop common objectives x Defining the tasks x Identifying team members x Defining roles of team members x Sharing experiences x Participatory learning x Put together all learning materials used x Mobilizing resources needed x Multi-stakeholder planning x Writing proposals x Developing action plan
49
8.3
Presentation to the visitors
A member of the World Bank review team accompanied by the DDG, NARO, Dr. John Aluma and Dr. David Mutettika representing the Dean of Faculty of Agriculture paid a courtesy call to acquit himself with the on-going learning process. Emily welcomed the visitors and invited everyone in the room to make a brief self-introduction. The coordinator informed the visitors on the arrangement to take them through what participants had covered and what remains to be done. Visitors and the workshop participants were all invited for the gallery walks. x Peter Lusembo presented the purpose and/or objectives of the learning process, the road map and expected outcomes. The presentation was delivered in a broad sense and how it can be translated into developing issues during the learning together for change. The audience was informed that the workshop is intended to initiate participants in the NWDB for IAR4D. What is different? -Study, analyze, understand and get into the innovation system -Farm level intervention through multiple levels of analysis -Move away from the reductionism focus and embrace complexity -Training, learning and adaptation to respond to research issues -Rethinking organizational culture but building on previous approaches Gard Turyamureeba gave a background to IAR4D, how it relates to the themes and what it takes to operationalize it. The NARO, MAK and ICRA initiative is aimed at addressing constraints through innovations. The NARs have to link innovations to the themes developed by NARO. If the understanding of different people are integrated in the innovation processes, several socio-economic constraints will be addressed x
Ahmed presented the challenges and requirement for doing things differently. Innovation systems and multi-disciplinarity as prerequisite
Team work x -Develop teamwork spirit x -Acquire skills for team building x -All research players to work as a team x -Effective motivated multi-disciplinary teams x -New teams built x -Appreciation of teamwork Personal competence -More competence and confidence to conduct research -Competent researchers in NWDB -Clear understanding of NWDB -Change in attitudes Action research x -More farmer participatory oriented research x -A shift towards action research x -A shift towards demand-driven research
50
Managing organizational change x -Improved and/or better management style initiated in the institutions x -Ability to induce and manage change x -Bringing policy into research through basic skills in policy research Performance management x -Different ways of motivating staff x -Improved performance in activities ranked lowest x -Skills for participatory monitoring and evaluation. Performance partnership x -Skills for partnership developed x -No duplication of work x -Better output due to synergy x -Partners identified x -Functional partnership developed (ZARI, NARI, MAK etc.) x -Skill for attracting and managing multiple stakeholders x Skills for facilitating multi-stakeholder initiatives Proposal formulation -Proposals written to source funds Problem identification Challenges include; x -How to impart multi-disciplinarity x -How to generate interest in policy research x -How to encourage farmers participation in research processes x -How to work in and maintain multi-disciplinary teams x -How to motivate human resource for effective performance x -How to develop partnership x -How to impart a culture of transparency within the system x -How to develop dynamic human resource x -How to improve monitoring and evaluation x -How to source for funds x -How to write competent research proposals Personal development and feedback Hilda explained the focus on personal development and feedback was based on the premise that since we are moving to a new level of interaction, we need new skills and that it comes from understanding ourselves better. The guests were taken through emotional intelligence, Johari window and feedback concepts as important elements that strengthen personal abilities to work in a team (s). The challenges and lessons in a social system change Prossy introduced the guests to systems thinking which is composed of the technical, biological and social systems. The social system being the major subject of interest was discussed further with emphasis that the innovation process the NARs will embark on is a social system that has to be treated in a holistic manner. The presented remarked that all elements within the system must be analyzed to understand all the components and relationships. When intervening in communities, we should never make preconceived assumptions but make a careful choice of entry point by first understanding the socioeconomic and political dynamics.
51
A question was posed to one of the guests asking for ideas on what happens when change is being introduced. It clearly came out that any change introduced in a system creates a lot of uncertainty and anxiety and many people get frightened but soften gradually, accepting and become hopeful. Thus change should be gradually introduced. We have to understand where we are and what we need to adjust to move to another level. What is expected from management to support the new ways of doing business (NWDB) Power point presentation by Anton Bua

8.3.1
The level of beaurocracy be reduced in favour of decentralization The participatory approach be adopted in planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of research and development activities by all partners Management should be innovative and rewarding (being appreciative) Management should develop a co-operate culture which can help in times of difficulties or pleasure (Team play) Management should be approachable and accommodative Management should be fluent, clear and cautious about public opinion and individual emotions Management should be firm and decisive on matters pertaining to resources and institutions Management should be flexible, respectful and supportive Transparency, accountability and commitment are fundamental requirements in New Ways of Doing Business (NWDB)
Reactions after the gallery walk
Comment. There is always a better way of doing things. Change is not given, but we need to take the forces that bring change and address them. Concern. So much was said on what is expected from management! What is the role of the managed? Remarks by the World Bank consultant Many countries are trying NWDB, but most importantly, it is how you implement the issues you want to address. It is essential to build on the previous knowledge and approaches to do business in a better way. The World Bank is willing to support the training. The idea of working not only for money is a very noble submission but if you pay peanuts, expect monkey business World Bank consultant. The World Bank consultant shared his view that the workshop fora can be used as learning platform for the teacher and student. Participants were asked for the explanation of the difference between agriculture and farming. The consultant concluded by giving the answer that in farming, you actually do it while in agriculture you learn. The participants will therefore go and do the practice, while the leaders and facilitators will support them in acquiring skills to go and practice.
52
One guest noted that although teaching was not done in the workshop, a lot of learning took place as displayed in the material pasted on the wall. The learning should therefore tickle Ugandans to generate indigenous knowledge relevant to Ugandas situation. The guest was however worried about the unconscious person, because it is important for all involved to be alert. The Dean of the faculty of Agriculture, Makerere University expressed his privilege for hosting the workshop. The dean also expressed his satisfaction on the inclusion of his staff in the learning process and pledged their commitment to tackle the challenge. The Director General, NARO advised partners involved in steering the NWDB to work together as a team. The DG further emphasized that the way we process change is different but important. The NWDB was declared as already in progress and there is no room to look back or wait for perfect situation, but only aim for success. The DG ended by giving a quote that the past preserved, the future foreseen should be the foundation to address the challenges foreseen. Emily concluded the session by giving an over view of the different organizations supporting the learning cycle. DFID is funding the learning until November 2004, NARO paid for private consultants from ARTP funds, ICRA paying for the facilitator they sent, MAK gave the venue, AHI supporting its staff studying the process. The audience was also informed that there is a lot of interest in the workshop and more people were expected to come in the next lot. The overall coordinator asked the leadership of NARO to include and support scientists who are not in the mainstream NARO in this learning cycle. 8.4 Towards an action plan for field phase
J rgen and Richard Hawkins both explained more on the future course In plenary the process of implementing the first field work was outlined as in the table below.
Main steps Identification of research issue Operationalization -Gather information on priorities -Invite all theme leaders and some stakeholders -Organize meeting to get ideas and get a common ground on formulated issues -Identify critical functions required to analyse the system -Analyse competencies required and available capacities (themes, functions and disciplines that satisfy those issues) -Request and negotiate with potential stakeholders Identify relevant stakeholders -Categorize accordingly to most important stakeholder -Find out what their different perceptions are on the issues (taxes, fertilizers, policy etc.) -Integrate the different perspective (stakeholder matrix) -Identify the role of research and formulate the research question, how to Possible tools -Survey reports -Prioritisation process -Meetings Who leads -Centre managers
Formation of research and development teams
-Centre managers
Exploring the system
-Diagram of innovation system -Diagram the functions and actors (actorstructure matrix) -Venn diagram -Stakeholder matrix -Concept map -Mind map -Questionnaire -Stakeholder meeting -Interview (semi and structured interview)
-Core team
53
Documentation, analysis and interpretation of whole process and outcome
-Documenting daily observation and discussions to get all the inbetweens -Summarize analyze What does it mean? -Regular reflections required on the process -Change of analytical framework -Need to design an analytical framework in advance
Report back on experiences in the next workshop. What have we done? How did it go/ what would be a better way? Analyse all these together. Major indicators for the next step rather than waiting till we get together again
8.5
Exploring the system
It is essential to analyze all information documented and interpret and know what the previous work means. A bigger meeting for stakeholders can be convened the next time one is needed. Many issues are involved in selecting stakeholders that is why it is important to understand them. Concern. What comes first, is it the research issue or formulating the research problem? Comment. Its almost like the chicken and egg question, but since we are building on ongoing activities, refer to the criteria of selecting researchable issues for more clarification. 8.5.1 Explaining the system
Take for instance the how to increase profitability of dairy enterprise in the southern rangelands, what does the question address? Do you link with others on the chain? Is the boundary broad enough? What is the subset of which unit? Remember to run through producers to traders. The question embraces all aspects, from production to consumption i.e. the whole continuum. The challenge is to identify the entry point into the system. The other example how to produce cotton varieties with high yields and acceptable lint quality has the following components; x x x x x Produce better varieties involves breeder, technology (NARI) Lint quality addresses the market demand High yields makes farmer happy Soil fertility is subject of interest to MAK Why did the cotton industry collapse in the first place?
You cannot just improve a portion of the whole system with the hope of addressing the bigger issue. Cotton production should only be tackled if the stakeholders think it can be a useful crop for the future. If you compare cotton and coffee, why do you think coffee bounced back on the production and market scene?
54
A better construction of the question could be, how to enhance competitiveness of the cotton industry to create benefits for We are assuming that we already have something on the ground, what if we have to start form scratch? Identifying a demand is not tantamount to asking, what do you want to do? More analysis is required. How do you identify with others especially whether you all understand each other on how the issues are framed? The research issue, how to increase vanilla production assumes there is a ready market for it. Since the crop grows well even in bushy areas, this can enhance natural management. It is also crucial for research to improve the quality of vanilla because it on high demands thus marketable. The kind of system calls for researchers to be proactive. A broader question that encompasses all sectors is required e.g. how to enhance and sustain vanilla commercialization in Uganda. 8.5.2 Identifying the stakeholders
For more detail on stakeholders, participants were given literature on; Systems diagrams Stakeholder matrices Referred to www.icra-edu.org (Learning resources, ARD, learning modules, information resources links to other websites and mind maps)
Systems diagrams should be drawn with community members participation. There are different kinds of farmers and the diagrams may differ. Other stakeholders can also be involved in drawing the diagram to get a richer picture. Diagrams are better tools for communicating the message. Information from farmers can also be obtained by conducting consultative or participatory farming systems research. 8.5.3 Why stakeholder analysis or matrix?
The best tool does not help if you dont administer it to the right people. Do not assume or take things for granted, challenge everything. When following the stakeholders: x Whom do you follow exactly? x Who has got the stake and why? x Who has not got and why? x How are the stakeholders affecting/contributing to the system? x What are the relationship and interactions between different actors and functions? x What do the actors do? x Are they on contractual basis within the system or working on a memorandum of understanding? x How does the system work? x What are the checks and the balances? x Where do they come from? x What are the opportunities and culture of different actors? x What are the real capacities of actors? x What are their future plans and perceptions? x What do they think of their mandate? Those are the driving questions to stakeholders. The questions must all be lined up systematically. Concern. To what extent have the zonal teams already gone through the above? Concern. How do we do this in such a way that makes people explain their exact position within the system?
55
8.6
Workshop Evaluation
56
Annex I:
1
Toolbox
Description Agreement on the dos and donts between facilitators and participants Remarks It helps clear doubts It levels ground for operation Gives clear understanding of working together It was only limited to time, ignored phones Did not apply to contribution e.g. Need to keep it short and simple (KISS) Could be applied to donors and participating institutions and facilitators It was a good ice-breaker People got to know one another better, especially those they paired up with Very informative Good and helpful in developing common vision
Tools used Contract
Paired introduction Sharing practical experiences
Participants paired using given guidelines Presentation from representatives from different organizations in the form of approaches used in implementing research Used in LCD projector
Power point
Reading
Presenter read from own script
Energizer of writing surnames Questions and answers Handouts Use of flash cards
Participants used their heads to write their surnames in the air Invite comments and questions from the audience Participants given reading materials Brief points presented on cards Read and pinned on high boards
Saves time as participants read along Capture attention Background was invisible Slides were crowded Suffered power interruption Saves time Convenient for the presenter Difficult for participants to follow Always better to give handouts Funny Awakens Good exercise Ice breaking Enhanced understanding Clarity Encourages people to follow presentations attentively Good visual Some presenters read to themselves Some were over crowded with information Small font size
8 9
57
Annex II:
List of participants
NARO/MAK/ICRA TRAINING PROGRAMME 19 24 April, 2004 at Makerere University CAEC Kabanyolo

No. 1. Name Mr Richard Miiro Designation & Organisation Director CAEC Faculty of Agriculture Makerere University Director Serere Agricultural Research Institute, NARO Senior Research Officer NARO Contact Address P.O. Box 7062, Kampala Tel: 256 077-378185 Fax: 256 041-531641 Email: rfmiiro@agric.mak.ac.ug P.O. Soroti Tel: 256 077 602553 P.O. Box 295, Entebbe Tel: 256 041 320178 Email: onape@infocom.co.ug, masiko@afsat.com, emilytwinamasiko@hotmail.com P.O. Box 10944, Kampala Tel: 077-465103 or P.O. Box 88, 6700 AB Wageningen, Netherland Tel: 31 (0) 317 422 938 Fax: 31 (0) 317 427 046 E-mail: Diana.akullo@wur.nl dianaoyena@yahoo.co.uk P.O. Box 88, 6700 AB Wageningen, Netherland Tel: 31 (0) 317 422 938 Fax: 31 (0) 317 427 046 Email: richhawk@btinternet.com Website:www.icra-edu.org P.O. Box 101, Hoima Tel: 256 077 617082 Email: birungipolly@yahoo.com or bulindiardc@yahoo.com Email: Jhagmann@aol.com SAARI, Soroti Tel: 256 077-221349/51 Fax: 256 077-280351 Email: djrees@infocom.co.ug P.O. Box 7062, Kampala P.O. Box 30355, Kampala Tel: 256 077-636253 P.O. Box 7062, Kampala Tel: 256 071 566952 Fax: 256 041-531641 Email: pkibwika@agric.mak.ac.ug P.O. Box 101, Hoima Tel: 256 077-439886 Email: bulindiardc@yahoo.com kanzikwera@hotmail.com P.O. Box 164, Mukono Tel: 256 041 290232 Fax: 256 041 290235 Email: ruthkabanyoro@yahoo.com.uk
2.
Dr L.K. Serunjogi
3.
Dr Emily Twinamasiko
4.
Ms Diana Akullo Oyena
Research Officer
5.
Dr Richard C. Hawkins
Associate Consultant ICRA
6.
Ms Birungi Pauline
Research Assistant Bulindi ARDC NARO Consultant Adaptive Research Specialist NARO/DFID COARD Project
7. 8.
Dr Jurgen Hagmann Dr David Rees
9.
Mr Zziwa Ahamada
Lecturer Makerere University Lecturer Makerere University
10.
Mr Paul Kibwika
11.
Dr Kanzikwera Rogers
Centre Manager/ SRO Bulindi ARDC/NARO Research Officer Mukono ARDC NARO
12.
Dr Ruth Kabanyoro
58
No. 13.
Name Dr Beatrice Akello
Designation & Organisation Research Officer Mukono ARDC NARO Senior Lecturer Makerere University
14.
Dr Ochwoh Victor A.
15.
Dr Charles Muyanga
Senior Lecturer Makerere University
16.
Dr Hilda Ruhesi
Veterinary Officer Mbarara Senior Research Officer FORRI/NARO
17.
Dr John Okorio
18. 19.
Mr Richard Nguma Dr Patrick Kucel
Program Officer CEFORD Arua Research Officer CORI/NARO
20.
Mr Geoffrey Musiime
Lecturer Makerere University Lecturer Makerere University Lecturer Makerere University Faculty of Vet. Medicine
21.
Ms Prossy Isubikalu
22.
Dr Samuel George Okech
Contact Address P.O. Box 164, Mukono Tel: 256 041 290232 Fax: 256 041 290239 Email: bakello@naromukono-ardc.org P.O. Box 7062, Kampala Tel: 256 077-479379 256 041 531641 Email: vochwoh@agric.mak.ac.ug P.O. Box 7062, Kampala Tel: 256 077-577708 Tel: 256 041 531641, 533676 Email: ckmuyanja@agric.mak.ac.ug P.O. Box 1, Mbarara Tel: 256 077-442059 Email: hildaruh@yahoo.com P.O. Box 1752, Kampala Tel: 256 077-710125 Fax: 256 041 255165 Email: okorio@utlonline.co.ug P.O. Box 303, Arua Tel: 256 077-464131 P.O. Box 185, Mukono Tel: 256 077 700725/077-609772 Fax: 256 077-250729 Email: cori@africaonline.co.ug P.O. Box 7062, Kampala Tel: 256 077-674873 Email: gtusiime@agric.mak.ac.ug P.O. Box 7062, Kampala Tel: 256 077-345398 Email: ikalu@agric.mak.ac.ug P.O. Box 7062, Kampala Tel: 256 077-605586 Fax: 256 041 554685 Email: sgokech@vetmed.mak.ac.ug
23.
Dr Konstantine Odongkara
Senior Research Officer FIRRI/NARO
24.
Dr Maria G NassunaMusoke Dr Ann Stroud
25.
Lecturer Faculty Vet. Medicine Makerere University Coordinator AHI
26.
Mr Chris Opondo
Research Fellow AHI
27.
Ms Everline Komutunga
Research Officer Mbarara ARDC NARO
P.O. Box 343, Jinja Tel: 256 043 120484 Fax: 256 043 120192 Email: socio-econ@firi.go.ug P.O. Box 7062, Kampala Tel: 256 077 391831 Email: mnassun@vetmed.mak.ac.ug P.O. Box 26416, Kampala Tel: 256 041 220607 256 075 766432 Fax: 256 041 223242 Email: A.Stroud@cgiar.org P.O. Box 6247, Kampala Tel: 256 077 978237 256 041 505021 Email: c.opondo@cgiar.org P.O. Box 389, Mbarara Tel: 256 077-573687 Email: Ziraaga@yahoo.com
59
No. 28.
Name Dr Robert NsubugaMutaka
Designation & Organisation Research Officer/ Ag. Centre Manager Mbarara ARDC/NARO Research Officer SAARI/NARO
29.
Dr Nelson Wanyera
30.
Mr Peter Lusembo
Centre Manager Mukono ARDC NARO Socio-Economist Ngetta ARDC/NARO
31.
Ms Graceline Akongo
32.
Ms Losira Nasirumbi
Socio Scientist NAARI/NARO Research Officer NAARI/NARO Research Officer Ngetta ARDC/NARO Research Officer SAARI/NARO
33.
Ms Mary Anne Apok
34.
Mr Yuventino Obong
35.
Mr Solomon Ogwal
Contact Address P.O. Box 389, Mbarara Tel: 256 077 427412 Fax: 256 077251413 Email: mutakanrc@yahoo.co.uk P.O. Box Soroti Tel: 256 077 447754 Fax: 256 077 250553 Email: nwanyera@hotmail.com P.O. Box 164, Mukono Tel: 256 041 290232 Fax: 256 041 290235 Email: mknardc@africaonline.co.ug P.O. Box 52, Lira Tel: 256 077 342974 Fax: 256 077 251578 Email: Gracelinako@yahoo.com P.O. Box 7084, Kampala Tel: 256 594216 Email: nasirumbi@yahoo.com P.O. Box 7084, Kampala Tel: 256 071-594957 Email: a_apok@yahoo.com P.O. Box 394, Lira Tel: 256 077-381369 Fax: 256 077 251578 P.O. Box Soroti Tel: 256 077 611774
36.
Mr John Wasswa Mulumba
Curator FORRI/NARO
37.
Dr Fina Opio
Director NAARI NARO Centre Manager Abi ARDC NARO Personal/Admn. Secretary Outreach NARO
38.
Dr Gard Turyamureeba
P.O. Box 40, Entebbe Tel: 256 041 320638 Fax: 256 041 321070 curator@infocom.co P.O. Box 7084, Kampala Tel: 256 077 423907 Email: fopio@naro-ug.org P.O. Box 219, Arua Tel: 256 077 448080 Email: gturyamureeba@yahoo.co.uk P.O. Box 295, Entebbe Tel: 256 320178 Fax: 256 041 321070 Email: onape@infocom.co.ug, laetka@hotmail.com P.O. Box 295, Entebbe Tel: 256 071 670733 Email: kasadha268@hotmail.com
39.
Ms Laetitia Kakooza
40.
Mr John Kashada
Assistant Outreach NARO

Learning Together for Agricultural Change

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Learning Together for Agricultural Change

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

NARO-MAK-ICRA Collaborative Initiative

D. Akullo, P. Kibwika and Chris Opondo

5.0 Experiences in the new way of doing business ...................... 20

Opening and setting the scene

Expectations and fears

Acquire new knowledge

Team formation to start change process

Feedback and toolbox committee

Background of the Initiative

1st learning cycle

Inputs for workshop 2, Phase 1

Outputs from workshop 1

Flow of the workshop and roadmap

Sharing experiences in the new way of doing business

The Integrated Natural Resources Management Approach (INRM) 3.1.1 Background:

Effective crossdisciplinary adaptive learning teams of R&D agents

Effective & efficient research management system & organization performance

Availability of adequate operational resources Effective communication strategy

Management of an effective INRM process that achieves impact

Effective facilitation & coordination of interactive processes at different levels

What is the effect?

How can this be done?

Some elements of personal development

The concept of feedback

Rules for giving and receiving feedback

Practicing giving and receiving feedback

Experiences in the new way of doing business

Self-assessment in the NWDB

Dr. Wanyera Solomon Ogwal John Okorio

Group III report - MAK

Phase III: Phase IV:

The major challenges were:

MAJOR CHALLENGES TO PUT NWDB INTO PRACTICE

How to acquire skills to do policy research

How to motivate and retain human resource

How to involve farmers in the research process

How to impart multidisciplinary skills into existing staff

Strengthen partnerships / networks (including private sector)

How to attract and retain competent human resource

How to exploit indigenous knowledge in research

How to manage the systems in a participatory manner

How to incorporate policy issues in research agenda

Scale out to new / other disciplines

How to build and sustain partnerships

What we want to achieve in this learning process

Getting into systems

Mapping social systems

The system game

Innovation systems debrief

Shift from cotton and millet led production to sweet potato

Shift from traditional to clonal coffee production

Experiences of working in groups

Zonal Agricultural research Institutes (ZARIs)

Core funds Competitive grants Generate own funds

Pooling and integration of expertise Responsible for outputs

Planning for the field work

Steps and activities for fieldwork

Presentation to the visitors

Reactions after the gallery walk

Formation of research and development teams

Exploring the system

Documentation, analysis and interpretation of whole process and outcome