The proposed System level logframe discussed here reflects present priorities and the current research portfolio of the CGIAR - but in a different framework. This framework will only be useful if it remains dynamic, changing as conditions change. Improvements and changes will result from an iterative process of successive approximations involving projects, centres, partners and the System. Once research projects have been reclassified and indicators at project level have been identified, the dynamic process can proceed.
The fact that the outputs of the present logframe are defined as the amalgamation of all research project outputs should provoke a discussion on synergies. Is the System more than the sum of its parts? If yes, how exactly can we express and measure this?
A first practical task will be the Systemwide introduction of the logframe approach. TAC proposes that portions of the vocabulary of the logframe be introduced with the 2000 centre programme and budgets. For example, what are currently called undertakings and activities will be identified as outputs. The fuller implications for financial planning (e.g. the reclassification of projects, the development of centre and project indicators and linkages with impact assessment, with accounting, and with financial reporting) would be introduced in 2001, permitting ample time for further exchange and, if desired, professional support.
The logframe does not replace priority setting but it is a powerful tool to make the process more transparent to all stakeholders. A clearer common understanding of the potential results of investments in research projects may lead to streamlining and shortening the process of finding a consensus between members, centres and TAC. At present, no change in the overall process of priority setting is suggested. However, a prerequisite for utilizing the logframe as a tool will be regrouping and compilation of centre projects according to different criteria (e.g., region, commodity, beneficiary groups, financing agreements, etc.). The use of standardized indicators and the inclusion of key information for project outputs and purposes will allow such flexible queries. Moreover, maintaining such information at the project level will permit a period of overlap between the new and old classification systems, allowing centres, members, and NARS to continue to assess the extent of resource shifts in response to changing opportunity.
The relationship between the logframe and monitoring and impact assessment is more direct. In fact, indicators and milestones are formulated expressly for evaluation purposes. Important for meaningful monitoring and impact assessment will be the further refinement of indicators. This can be done on the basis of centre/project level indicators. The combined system of milestones and indicators (output to intermediate goal level) provides a mechanism for short-term adjustments as well as medium- and long-term evaluations. In terms of responsibility, an organizational solution will have to be found which, at System level, closely links the monitoring of scientific integrity and relevance with the assessment of benefits for intermediate and ultimate users (impact).
In time, budget procedures and reporting will be made fully compatible with the logframe approach. Especially with regard to reporting it is hoped that the acceptance of the System's logframe by all stakeholders will ultimately lead to a more uniform reporting system acceptable by different funding sources.
The expansion of the logframe approach to the areas alluded to above does not pose any conceptual problems. The over-riding principle for finding and institutionalizing practical solutions must be simplicity and usefulness to management. The challenge will be to develop efficient instruments that allow ever more effective management of key issues. As well, such instruments must be compatible with centre and with System requirements and allow flexibility at centre level.
