Previous Page Table of Contents

Session 5. Case study: Organizational change at Samaru, Nigeria

Session guide: Organizational change at Samaru, Nigeria
Case study: Organizational change at Samaru, Nigeria 1



FORMAT - Case discussion



At the end of this session, participants should be familiar with strengths and weaknesses of managing projects within a matrix organization and structure.




McKenzie, J. 1983. Organizational Change at Samaru, Nigeria. The Hague: ISNAR.


Reading note: Organizational theories (See Module 3 - Session 1)

Reading note: Structure of an organization (See Module 3 - Session 2)

Reading note: Organizational design and change (See Module 3 - Session 3)



Session guide: Organizational change at Samaru, Nigeria

Initiate discussion by asking participants "How is research organized in a university system?" "How does it differ from a research institute?" Observe that, even though research is interdisciplinary, it is organized by disciplines in universities. In some cases, a matrix form of organization may be prevalent. Discuss at this stage the principal features (including the strengths and weaknesses) of disciplinary, functional, project management and matrix forms of organization structure. Which form of organization is best suited for a research institution?

Now ask, "What is the problem?" Is it because two different organizational structures are to be juxtaposed? Observe that even though the Institute for Agricultural Research (IAR) is located at the university, it is semi-autonomous. It has its own budget, a separate Director, and a governing board which advises on budget and policy issues. The Institute receives funds from the Federal Ministry of Science and Technology while the university is funded by the Federal Ministry of Education. However, there are linkages between the institute and the university through various activities and the organizational structure.

IAR staff are permitted to teach at the university. The scientists of the university engage in research activities at the institute. Post-graduate students at the university undertake their thesis research in the institute. The IAR research staff is five times larger than the total strength of scientists in the university. Cross-pollination of ideas is encouraged.

Apart from the linkage through activities, IAR has organizational linkages with the university. The Director of IAR is appointed by the vice-chancellor of the university, who is also a member of the IAR governing board. The 13 research sections in IAR are part of six departments in the university (Table 2 in the case study). This provides formal linkages with parent disciplines. For example, the research sections on Soil Science, Soil Survey and Soil and Water Management at IAR are under the university Department of Soil Science. A system of joint appointments prevails. The heads of the research sections at IAR are nominally subordinate to the respective heads of department at the university. However, there is a single disciplinary structure for managing research activities in IAR.

Ask participants how IAR has managed change in its organizational structure in response to changes in the external environment. In the past there have been two notable changes.

In 1972, research was reorganized under different programmes, based on a systems approach. This replaced the disciplinary approach which had existed until then. A multidisciplinary research programme was organized along commodity lines with elaborate procedures for preparation, proposal and initial approval, and progress monitoring and annual re-approval of the programme (Appendixes 2 and 3 of the case study). An open process was evolved for management of research. A committee was appointed for each programme, with responsibility for project planning and review in open sessions. Projects were developed at the initiative of the scientists. The committee made its recommendations to the Project and Academic Board. The Board advised the director on research matters. It had institute-wide responsibility for overseeing implementation of the programmes of the project committee. Funding for research projects was given to the disciplinary sections to which the relevant scientist-in-charge of the project belonged.

The second change began in 1974, when IAR started preparing its budget proposals by programmes rather than by disciplines. It was recognized that government officials could better identify national priorities if activities were in terms of commodity programmes rather than disciplines. However, this approach was limited only to budget preparation. Once the budget was approved, it was actually disbursed according to disciplinary research sections.

The third change was proposed in 1981, and is the subject matter of this case study. It involved disbanding of research sections and reorganization of research in the institute along programme lines. This provoked heated debate, and a committee had to be appointed to carefully vet the proposal. The committee was chaired by the Head of the Crop Production Section. He was the one most opposed to the reorganization of research on programme lines. The committee proposed a compromise, under which research in the institute would be organized by programmes and individual crops were to be treated as sub-programmes (Table 3 in the case study). Research sections were to be abolished, but the heads of departments were to retain their staff-management-related functions. Funding of research was to be according to programmes. The current and proposed organizational set-ups are given as Appendixes 4 and 5 to the case study.

The proposed organizational change would be the third in the history of the institute. Ask participants why this change was necessary. Was it because of the change in the external environment? Internal environment? Would you proceed with the reorganization if you were Mr Davies? Why? The opinions are likely to differ and there is unlikely to be complete agreement on what Mr. Davies should or should not do. There will always be some nagging doubts, particularly about the implementability of the proposed change and its effects.

At that time, the main concern was the likely reaction from scientists at the institute. Many of them had vehemently opposed the proposed change, arguing that it would create a dual authority. The scientists would look to their department heads for promotion, but report to one or more programme leaders for work supervision. Further, the proposed abolition of research divisions was perceived as a loss of disciplinary identity, leading to short-term orientation in the research, at the neglect of long-term perspectives. There was also concern for loss of freedom in selecting projects. It was feared that the committees would become all-powerful and order the scientists what to do. The new set-up was also to entail some costs at a time when the institute was facing a research funding crunch. These arguments were raised by the oldtimers. The newer scientific recruits appreciated the spirit of the proposed change, which was to lead to higher relevance.

Discuss at this stage desirable features in an organizational structure. It should

· be sensitive to the needs of the people, and perceived as responsive,

· be flexible and enable people to establish new relationships and new partnerships,

· reinforce and strengthen the key personnel and functional linkages within the organization,

· facilitate effective implementation of decisions, and

· provide a system of orientation reflecting awareness of the interrelationships among the various parts of the organization and the management functions required for the organization's success.

Observe that organizational structure is influenced by the environment, concern for efficiency, desire for responsiveness and ability to work.

Observe that in every organization there is an informal organizational structure which runs parallel to the formal structure. The informal structure facilitates various functions and provides quick responses to stimuli from the external environment. Change in organizational structure facilitates absorption of the informal structure into the formal structure.

During the discussion, the resource person could discuss the following at appropriate places.

· Qualifications required in a good project manager.

· Advantages and disadvantages of working as a project manager.

· Whether project management involves more participative management by the staff than is needed in discipline - or function-oriented organizations, and, if so, why?

· If conflict arises between a technical project requirement and a policy or standard of a supporting disciplinary or functional department, should control differ, depending on the nature of the conflict? If so, name different conflicts and state which should control in each instance. Issues in conflict management could be discussed here.

Case study: Organizational change at Samaru, Nigeria 1

The structure of the research organization
Proposals for change in the organizational structure
Appendix 1: Summary programme budgets and special expenditures, 1983
Appendix 2: Proposal for a new research project
Appendix 3: Annual review of research projects - 1982 season
Appendix 4: Current organizational structure of IAR and the Faculty of Agriculture, Samaru
Appendix 5: Proposed organizational structure of IAR and the Faculty of Agriculture, Samaru

1 Prepared by J. McKenzie of the International Service for National Agricultural Research.

In October 1983, as the Nigerian President's appointees to the Board of Governors at the Institute for Agricultural Research (IAR) arrived at Samaru, the sun was beginning to invade the cool of early morning. The three men, resplendent in fila caps and vivid agbada gowns, were escorted to the office of the Director, Mr John Davies, who bid them welcome. Mr Davies hoped he did not look as tired as he felt, having worked late into the previous night putting the final details on his presentation to the board. He ordered them all some coffee.

Mr Davies knew that his guests would be interested to know how the institute was pushing forward the President's agricultural policy. The government was committed to bringing the 'green revolution' to Nigeria. For many months, the senior staff at the institute had been considering means by which their research efforts could be more directly aimed at furthering the priorities of the government. They had formulated a proposal to change the way in which their research work was organized. The institute's research work had a high reputation for excellence, and Mr Davies and his colleagues had applied their usual thoroughness in considering a new plan. The proposal was to be presented to the Board of Governors for approval in a meeting that afternoon. Mr Davies hoped that nothing would go wrong.


IAR was Nigeria's main centre for savannah crops research. By 1982, the institute had a highly qualified and enthusiastic scientific staff, including 67 PhDs, 37 MScs and 25 BScs, with 110 skilled and qualified support staff. It was funded through Nigeria's Federal Ministry of Science and Technology. Its budget in 1982 stood at over N 7 million.

The institute had its origin in 1922, when the Department of Agriculture for the Northern Provinces established its headquarters at Samaru, with research and training facilities. In 1962, the Nigerian government inaugurated its new Ahmadu Bello University in Samaru, and the Department of Agriculture headquarters became IAR, attached to the university. Although attached to the university, it maintained semi-autonomy. It had its own director, its own statutes, and its own Board of Governors to advise on budget and policy issues. The director was, however, appointed by the university vice-chancellor, who also sat on the IAR Board of Governors.

In physical terms the institute was very much part of the university campus and was closely linked with the Faculty of Agriculture. The institute had five times as many scientific staff as the faculty, but they were organized into research sections attached to the academic departments of the faculty.

There was a strong interchange between the institute and the faculty. For example, research scientists could devote up to 10% cent of their time to teaching. Similarly, academic staff of the faculty could spend up to 30% of their time on research projects in the institute. Both the faculty and the institute benefited from the cross-pollination of ideas. It was also of interest to many of the scientists to have the possibility of being able to alternate between academe and applied research.

The institute used the faculty as a source of staff. It was able to recruit staff from the academic world through the university. It also sought to recruit the cream of the faculty graduate students. Quite a sense of rivalry existed between the institute's research sections over talent spotting the most promising graduates. Up to twenty graduates were employed each year as research assistants. In addition, MSc and PhD students were encouraged to link their research with the institute's programme.

Dr Joe Yayock, assistant director of the institute, was enthusiastic about this link. "We like to work people into the system. We succeed by commitment and team spirit. We can really develop this in our scientists if we catch them young."

Although close ties existed, the institute and faculty were separate entities. This was strongly underlined by the fact that the institute was funded by the Federal Ministry of Science and Technology whereas the university was funded by the Federal Ministry of Education. This meant that the institute was held accountable for its results in a different way to the university. Specifically, the government funded the institute in order to increase national agricultural production.

Since its creation in 1962, the institute had experienced some turbulence in its relationship with government agencies. Many changes had taken place in the organization of government in Nigeria. This had meant that the government bodies responsible for administering agricultural research institutions had changed as well. The most recent change had taken place when Nigeria had returned to civilian rule in 1979. At this time the institute had come under the control of the new Federal Ministry of Science and Technology.

This had involved the institute in redrafting its statutes and reconstituting its Board of Governors. The Board of Governors was an important body, advising the Director and holding ultimate power of approval over budget and policy. When a new Board of Governors was appointed in 1980, the number of members was reduced to ten and the proportional representation of scientific officers was diminished. For the first time, the President of Nigeria selected personal appointees to sit as members. The membership of the Board of Governors in 1983 is given in Table 1.

Table 1. IAR governors in 1983


Professor Ango Abdullahi *
Vice-Chancellor (Chairman)

Mr J.H. Davies *
Director, IAR

Alhaji Imrana Yazidu *
Director, Agricultural Research Extension Liaison Service

Dr J.A. Gana *
University Senate representative

Professor L.B. Olugbemi *
Institute of Agricultural Research Professional and Academic Board representative

Dr P.A.E. Onuorah
Federal Ministry of Science and Technology representative

Alhaji Zakariya Dogara
Appointed by the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria

Alhaji Bawa Nuhu
Appointed by the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria

Alhaji M.M. Sani
Appointed by the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria

Note: * = nominated by the University

In 1980, the government embarked on a 'green revolution' programme to attain self-sufficiency in food crops within five years, and in cash crops within seven years. It looked to its national research institutes to provide the means to carry out this task. At this time, the country's income from oil exports was N 8 000 million, which provided funds for extensive development plans. However, the population was growing at 3.5% annually, while agricultural production was increasing at an average of only 1 % per annum.

The government considered the role of the institute to be essential to agricultural development in northern Nigeria. In 1982, over half the country's 90 million population lived in the northern region, which was largely an area of flat, grassy savannah. There was a rainy season of seven months a year in the south, diminishing to four months a year in the north. The main traditional crops of the region were sorghum, millet and cowpea. Cereals were usually intercropped with vegetables or legumes, and most cultivation was by hand. The northern region made a major contribution to national food supply. Sorghum, millet and cowpea alone provided a daily average of 38% of kilocalories and 56% of protein by weight per caput. The potential for improving this contribution by transforming traditional farming practices seemed to be great.

Between 1980 and 1982, world demand for oil declined sharply. Nigeria's daily oil output fell from 2 million barrels in 1980 to 800 000 barrels in 1980. The government was obliged to cut back on its development plans. Despite the fact that agricultural research was a priority, the government began to examine the activity of agricultural research institutions. In August 1982, Mr Davies was called before a special committee of the House of Representatives. He was required to inform the committee of the size and nature of contributions that his institute had been making towards national agricultural self-sufficiency. He was also required to justify his proposed recurrent budget of N 7.5 million for 1983 (see Appendix 1 to this case study). This was the first occasion that any director of a national research institute had been called before members of the government.

The structure of the research organization

The focus of the institute was its administration building, where Mr Davies and Dr Yayock had their offices. Here was also the meeting hall and a library. The research scientists themselves occupied their respective sections, whose buildings were scattered over a wide area of the campus.

There were six agricultural departments of the university, to which were attached 13 research sections from the institute (see Table 2). Each research section consisted of 6 to 12 research officers, intermediate and junior staff, and was led by a section head. The section head was responsible for the overall management of the programme and reported to the Director.

Table 2. Departments of the Faculty of Agriculture and associated IAR Research Sections



Agricultural Economics and
Rural Sociology

· Agricultural Economics
· Rural Sociology

Plant Science

· Plant Breeding
· Fibre breeding
· Horticulture

Soil Science

· Soil Science
· Soil Survey
· Soil and Water Management


· Agronomy
· Weed Science

Crop Protection

· Plant Pathology
· Entomology

Agricultural Engineering

· Agricultural Engineering

The heads of section were nominally subordinate to their department heads. Department heads were joint faculty-institute appointments, and reported to both the dean of the faculty and the director of the institute. They were in charge of both the faculty and institute staff within their departments over matters of commendation or discipline, but consulted very closely with section heads. The section heads submitted annual appraisals of their intermediate and junior staff to their department heads. Department heads were paid a responsibility allowance of 8% of their salary.

In 1972, a new procedure was adopted for the organization of experiments. As the institute was a centre of research for savannah crops, it seemed only appropriate that its projects should be related to particular crops or environmental systems (Table 3).

Table 3. Research programmes with component sub-programmes

Research programme


Cereals improvement

· Sorghum
· Millet
· Wheat
· Maize
· Barley

Oilseed improvement

· Groundnut
· Beniseed

Grain legumes improvement

· Soybean
· Cowpea

Fibre crops improvement

· Cotton
· Roselle
· Jute

Horticultural crops improvement

· Tomato
· Pepper
· Onion
· Okra
· Mango

Cropping systems

· Intercropping
· Rotations

Ten programmes were identified, and these were in line with government agricultural priorities for northern Nigeria. For each programme, a committee was chosen under a chairperson. The members of committees were chosen from senior members of the different sections, to give an appropriate spread of knowledge. For example, the committee on cereals improvement included an agronomist, an entomologist, a plant breeder, a climatologist, a soil scientist, an agricultural engineer and an agricultural economist. Committee meetings were open to all interested parties, and could proceed only if representatives of five sections were present, together with a representative of the Agricultural Extension Research Liaison Service.

Dr Joe Yayock explained: "Because our resources were limited we had to look at the balance of our energies in any one programme. When the disciplines worked without cross-communication we might, as an example, have had extensive experimentation in crop protection for a given crop, yet quite neglect work in crop nutrition."

The meetings were an open forum for debate.

"When we start defending our own fields, things get tough," said a recently qualified PhD, "but as we are looking for ideas, even those of us with less experience are listened to."

The research programme committees held meetings during the year to consider ways of improving their programmes. This gave opportunity for the scientists of different sections to exchange ideas. There was general awareness that scientists from different disciplines had different approaches to problems.

Said Dr Erinle, Chairman of the Horticultural Crops Improvement Programme Committee: "You might put it that, as a scientist of one discipline, I look at a scientist of another discipline and consider that he has a different shape of head from mine. Should I then expect him to wear my own hairstyle?"

The programme committees had two major meetings at the end of each year: one of these was to examine newly proposed projects for the forthcoming year; the other was to examine ongoing projects.

Researchers, having first carried out a preliminary investigation, drafted a project proposal describing their intended experiment, and providing justification (for an example, see Appendix 2 to this case study). This proposal was checked by the researcher's head of department and head of section for technical feasibility. The proposal was then put to the committee at its meeting.

The meetings were lively affairs, and sometimes filled the hall so that latecomers had to stand. Mr Davies and Dr Yayock always made a project proposal and the committee could consider how it would fill a gap or otherwise strengthen their overall programme. The committee would also made a decision on how much priority the project should be given in relation to the availability of resources. Those proposed projects that were not accepted generally underwent some comprehensive criticism. Proposals would only be accepted when the consensus of the entire meeting was reached.

On a separate occasion, the programme committees met to review their ongoing projects. Each research scientist submitted an annual progress report (see Appendix 3 to this case study) on his or her work. At these reviews the committee had the opportunity of discounting unsuccessful projects or advancing successful ones, for example, to outstation trials.

When both new and ongoing projects had been considered by the committee, a programme for the forthcoming year was compiled. This was then submitted for final approval to an advisory board called the Professional and Academic Board.

The Professional and Academic Board advised on internal issues, such as details of the overall research programmes and publications. It was the function of the Professional and Academic Board to see that the research programmes drawn up by the crop committees were translated into programmes of the research sections. A scientist proposing a particular project to the crop committee would do so with the knowledge of the relevant section head. In this way the scientist would know within which section the project work would be carried out, even before the experiment was approved. Also, the section head would know which projects the section would need to budget for.

Each year, the crop or programme committees met in October or November. Their completed programmes were submitted to the Professional and Academic Board for approval before January of the following year. Before the Professional and Academic Board meeting, the heads of section, in collaboration with Mr Davies and the finance officer, would have to estimate what their section's probable budget allocation might be as of the forthcoming July. Where the section heads felt that their anticipated funding would not be adequate to carry out all the projects from the various crop programmes, they were able to make alternative arrangements at the Professional and Academic Board meetings. The head of section and the chairperson could meet the chairs of the programme committees to deliberate on which projects should have priority over others. In the event of inadequate funding, low-priority projects would be held back.

When the budget allocation for the institute had been finalized in the next July, and Mr Davies had apportioned this to the various sections according to government priorities attached to particular programmes, the heads of sections would know how many projects could be undertaken. Since 1972, when the multidisciplinary programme committees were initiated, certain benefits had become obvious.

"By taking a systems approach, we no longer see experiments out of relation with each other. Also, joint experiments from scientists of different disciplines are giving us entirely new perspectives," said Dr Joe Yayock. It was widely felt that the programme committees also gave scientists from various sections an invaluable opportunity to come together and talk to each other.

In 1974, the institute began to prepare its budget proposal by programmes. Although, within the institute, research projects were carried out by sections, Mr Davies found the government was more enthusiastic in giving money to develop 'crops,' rather than carry out 'scientific activities.' The programme approach also made Mr Davies's job much easier in presenting his results to government agencies. A non-scientific official, for example, could appreciate a breakthrough in 'maize' more readily than a breakthrough in 'plant pathology.'

For the purpose of carrying out research, the programme budget then was translated into the requirements of research sections. Mr Davies calculated this by estimating resources allocated to particular projects within programmes, and then reallocating these projects to sections.

Because the programme approach had worked so well, it seemed logical to reorganize along programme lines the way in which projects were carried out. "We have always looked for ways of improvement," said Dr Joe Yayock.

Thanks to the flexibility and foresight of its senior staff, the institute had achieved a consistently high standard of research output, by accommodating to change. As the government became more interested in the progress of agriculture, it had begun to identify priority crops, and wished to see research related directly to these priorities. Mr Davies and his senior staff were, therefore, aware of pressure for change, and saw a need for action.

Proposals for change in the organizational structure

In July 1981, Mr Davies and Dr Yayock made a proposal that research sections should be disbanded, and that the institute's research function should be reorganized along programme lines. The proposal was circulated amongst heads of departments, heads of sections and chairs of programme committees, for open discussion. The reaction from individuals and entire sections was intense. "If the university recognizes disciplines, and the institute recognizes programmes, are we going our separate ways?" asked a strongly worded memo from the plant pathology section to the Director.

Mr Davies set up a working group of eight senior staff members to look at the reaction of individuals and sections to the proposed change. The working group, having considered the implications, was to suggest a suitable organizational structure. As the department of crop protection was militantly against the proposal, Mr Davies chose its head, Dr Erinle, as chairman of the working group.

Maintaining a close link with the Faculty of Agriculture was seen as important. The working group resolved that institute staff should remain attached to their existing departments. The heads of department would as usual be responsible for all appointments, promotions, staff discipline and the upkeep and maintenance of the department buildings. The research section would, however, be abolished per se, and research projects would be carried out under programmes. The personnel management function of heads of section, such as the administration of intermediate and junior staff, would be passed on to newly appointed programme leaders.

Each research programme would be headed by a programme leader, who would chair the respective research programme committee. He or she would assume all administrative responsibility for research projects in the programme, including budgeting and disbursal of funds, and would be responsible for acquisition and deployment of casual labour and administration of transport allocated to the programme. Office space was being vacated in the administration building of the director. Each programme leader would occupy a newly furnished office, from whence to direct research operations. This meant that the scientific staff would remain in their existing offices, but would be administered centrally.

The programme leaders would be answerable directly to Mr Davies. They would be senior members of staff, of status eligible for appointment as heads of academic departments. They would also be paid a supplement of 8% of their annual salary for administrative responsibility. Whereas some of the research committees were chaired by faculty staff, the new programme leaders would all be institute appointments. The current and proposed organizational structures are given as Appendixes 4 and 5 to this case study.

The members of the Department of Crop Protection remained unhappy. "Some of our equipment is expensive," said an entomologist, "and our section makes economic use of it. If each programme has to have its own equipment for entomological research, and I suppose each one will, are we able to afford it? Will we get full use of it?" He went on to express concern over the possible loss of section heads. "At the moment, if I need my boss, he's just next door. What will happen when he is some way off in the administration office and a problem crops up or I want to go on tour, and then he is out or can't be reached by telephone? Thinking about that... who will be my boss anyway?"

One problem the working group found hard to resolve was the linkage between heads of departments and heads of programmes. The scientist would look to the head of department for promotion but to one or more programme leaders for supervision of the work. The working group consoled itself with the thought that as the senior staff were both responsible and cooperative, personality issues were unlikely to arise.

Amongst some scientists there was a worry that the abolition of research sections would lead to a loss of discipline identity. A researcher in the department of soil science explained that if soil scientists were merely attached to programmes there might be a lack of communication between them. Furthermore, there was a risk that research goals would become short-term, and that longer-term consideration of such issues as soil degradation would be ignored.

There was also some preoccupation amongst a few researchers concerning their freedom to select projects. As an agronomist explained, "At the moment, we formulate our own projects and take them before a research programme committee for approval, rather in an academic tradition. I suppose that with the new system the committees will be telling us what to do."

In contrast, some researchers saw opportunities with the new programme structure. One plant pathologist, who had been specializing in pest control in cotton, said, "If we want our work to be recognized internationally we have to go with programmes. I am becoming recognized for my work on cotton because the world is interested in crops."

Mr Davies was anticipating that certain costs would be involved in a changeover to a research system organized by programmes. Besides the cost of locating the programme leaders in their new offices, certain support functions would require upgrading. For example, the internal telephone network worked very poorly, and required an investment of N 200 000 to make it function properly.

The working group under Dr Erinle realized that its task in proposing a new organizational structure for the institute was delicate. This was particularly so because of the triangular relationship between the institute, the government and the university. When the working group submitted its proposal to Mr Davies in June 1982, Dr Erinle mentioned in a covering letter: "Perhaps it would not be far from the truth to say that the institute is like a woman living with two husbands. Such liaison often requires some balancing acts."

Before any part of the proposed reorganization could take place, the approval of the Board of Governors had to be sought. As the members of the working group had reached consensus on each of their recommendations, Mr Davies felt confident that on paper the new scheme was workable. What made Mr Davies a little less comfortable was the uncertainty as to how the institute itself would react to a changeover, and exactly how this could affect the quality of its work. Twenty-six years of experience in Nigeria had told Mr Davies that life could be very hard to predict.

Mr Davies had thrown a small reception for his honoured colleagues on the institute's Board of Governors following their meeting. His last guest had just left. He sat down in his old leather armchair, exhausted, and gazed up at the fan turning in the ceiling. His presentation had gone well. He had also expressed his concern at the risk involved in putting such a change into practice. The Board had congratulated the excellent work that had gone into the proposal, and appreciated his concern.

"Proceed if you think that is best," had been their conclusion. Mr Davies felt tired and very far from knowing what was best. He didn't know if he should proceed. There might be another better way of reorganization that they had not begun to consider. If he did proceed, he was uncertain how long it would take for people to get used to the new system.

The lights flickered for a second and then died. The power supply had failed, leaving Mr Davies in darkness with his thoughts.

Appendix 1: Summary programme budgets and special expenditures, 1983

(in Naira)


Senior management staff

Other staff

Total personnel expenditures


Emergency & daily rated labour

Supplies & expenses

Equipment & materials


Total other charges

Total costs

1. Cereals

42 412

174 444

216 856

19 447

38 203

15 898

12 380

11 760

97 688

314 544

2. Oilseeds

29 924

106 861

136 785

6 300

23 000

7 880

7 700

9 900

54 780

191 565

3. Fibres

8 090

83 920

92 010

8 820

14 900

20 000

1 000

6 000

50 720

142 730

4. Grain legumes

24 692

68 359

93 051

6 900

13 210

9 975


4 635

34 720

127 771

5. Vegetables & fruit trees

10 956

71 414

82 370

8 716

20 315

3 885

6 010

11 422

50 348

132 718

6. Crop nutrition, Soil, etc.

66 550

258 103

324 653

61 333

12 500

41 920

44 700

12 000

172 453

497 106

7. Irrigation

49 168

163 360

212 528

17 000

19 000

25 000

60 000

18 000

139 000

351 528

8. Socio-economics & extension

71 300

334 725

406 025

76 384

9 100

18 900

20 400

32 700

157 934

563 959

9. Farming systems

16 959

95 486

112 445

10 260

10 318

9 975

11 720

5 193

47 466

159 911

10. Agri-mechanization

42 962

129 792

172 754

12 000

6 000

25 000

20 000

5 500

68 500

241 254

11. Central HQ Admin.

157 658

371 807

529 464

320 300


397 400

21 500

20 000

759 200

1 288 665

12. Res. Sta. operations

31 514

841 751

873 265

86 000

206 000

354 500

148 000

83 000

877 500

1 750 765

13. Support services

30 532

174 150

204 682

16 430

6 250

221 700

77 400

15 600

337 290

541 972

3 456 889

2 847 599

6 304 488


788 190

788 190

Staff gratuities (1% of personnel expenses)

345 688

345 688


3 456 889

3 981 477

7 438 366

Appendix 2: Proposal for a new research project


Cereal Crop Improvement




Socio-economics of production


Technology adoption


Socio-economic study of production of improved mono-crop sorghum using various technologies


· To ascertain the extent to which improved mono-crop sorghum practices have been adopted in the study area.

· To estimate costs and returns from growing mono-crop sorghum using various technologies.

· To determine the level of adoption of an improved sorghum production package and consider the problems faced by adopters.

· To observe how the adoption of an improved sorghum production package affects resource utilization in other farm enterprises.


Researchers are coming up with new recommendations for sorghum production, involving cultivars, plant populations, weed control methods, pest control, etc. These changes will no doubt affect a farmer's cost-return structure and utilization of resources, and therefore her or his decision whether or not to adopt a new package. This study can be expected to reveal the shortcomings and strong points of any such package.

Outline of experimental approach

Participating farmers will be classified into those using hand tools only, those using animal-drawn equipment and those using tractor-drawn equipment. All farmers will be encouraged to adhere to the recommendations with regard to cultivar, plant population, fertilizer application and pest and disease control. Land preparation can be carried out as the farmer chooses, but good seed-bed preparation will be encouraged. Farmers will be able to choose whether to control weeds by hand, by use of herbicides or by some mechanical means. Any available ox-drawn weeding equipment for testing can be used. Reasonable weed control will be ensured on all plots. Individual farm size will depend on farmers' past experience and the area planned to be grown that season. Credit may be required to encourage farmers to use improved inputs.

Starting date

1982/83 cropping season


1 or 2 years


Ogungbile; Abalu; Ogunlela; Obilana; Shebayan; Santa; Awolola; Atala; Kalkat.

Submitted by

Dr Ogungbile

Comment by Head of Section

An important experiment, given the government's high priority for sorghum. The major researchers represent a wide cross-section of disciplines, including agricultural economics, agronomy, plant breeding, agricultural engineering, weed science and sociology. The methodology is perhaps somewhat open-ended, but results could be interesting.

Approved by Head of Section

Signed: .......................

Date: ..........................

Approved by Research Committee

Signed: .......................

Date: ..........................

Appendix 3: Annual review of research projects - 1982 season

Programme: Horticultural Crops

Sub-programme: Mango

Project: Propagation

Sub-project: Vegetative Propagation

Title: Propagation technique in mango

Objective: To compare different methods of vegetative propagation of mango in various ecological zones

Starting date: 1982

Researcher(s): Dr Olarewaju; Dr Karikari; Dr Adejoh.

List of experiments conducted during Year 1 in support of the sub-project

Project location


Progress report

The trial is still in its initial stage, having been established in July 1982. The number of shoots developing per plant between transplanting (July) and 26 September 1982 were counted. Bench-grafted seedlings had 4 shoots; unbudded local mango had 9 shoots; side-grafted seedlings had 10 shoots; and patch-budded seedlings had 16 shoots. Tomatoes, peppers and eggplants were planted between the rows to utilize otherwise wasted land.

Comments by Lead Researcher

The trial has made encouraging progress. Plans are under way to extend the trial to additional ecological zones in 1983.



Comments by Head of Section

The progress is impressive. The trial should be established in outstations during the 1983 wet season.

Approved by Head of Section



Approved by Research Committee



Appendix 4: Current organizational structure of IAR and the Faculty of Agriculture, Samaru


Appendix 5: Proposed organizational structure of IAR and the Faculty of Agriculture, Samaru


This training manual has been prepared as basic reference material to help national research trainers structure and conduct training courses on research management at the institute level. It is intended primarily for managers of agricultural research institutes in developing countries and for institutions of higher education interested in presenting in-service training courses on research management. The manual consists of ten modules, each addressing major management functions including motivation, leadership, direction, priority setting, communications and delegation. The four structural functions of management - planning, organization, monitoring and control, and evaluation - are covered in individual modules. The manual has been designed to support participatory learning through case-studies, group exercises and presentations by the participants.

Previous Page Top of Page