6.1 The Changing Environment
6.2 Lessons from the Past
6.3 The Niche
6.4 Looking Ahead: Pointers for Action
6.5 Major Implications
Major changes have taken place in the external environment of NARS since the last External Program and Management Review of ISNAR was completed in 1991. An assessment of these changes along with our review of ISNAR's experiences with its programs over the past five years provides a useful basis for looking ahead at the corrections and directional changes ISNAR needs to consider for the next five years. New environmental challenges are likely to change the nature and scope of the problems confronting NARS and will necessitate new approaches and methods to address them. The lessons of ISNAR's experience could be used to finetune these approaches and to avoid some of the pitfalls of the past. Most of the ideas presented below have been influenced by the Panel's discussions with different staff groups and reinforce some of the initiatives that are already under consideration by ISNAR.
We highlight below five notable environmental changes, the implications of which are likely to be significant for ISNAR's future work.
1. Developing countries are rapidly coming to terms with the multiplicity of players in NARS and with the new roles and functions being assumed by them. The monopoly status enjoyed by the public sector is being eroded under the pressure of globalization even though the interrelationships among the different players remain to be clearly defined. The rigid research boundaries between agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and other natural resources are breaking down. Much is being expected of the private sector, NGOs, regional fora, and universities, and of the broadened agenda for research in the new regime, but without any clarity about the institutional arrangements and incentive structures necessary to make the new system work effectively.2. In relative terms, financial resources are expected to be available more with private-sector players than with the public-sector institutions. The Panel recognizes that there will be wide differences among regions and countries in the role of the private sector and the responsibilities of the public-sector institutions. In the future, therefore, it is likely that the strong public-sector control over research that used to characterize developing-country research environments will no longer prevail.
3. The availability of and access to new research products/processes of advanced agricultural technologies and biotechnology are undergoing major changes because of new sources of supply, largely in the private sector, and because of the changing rules of the game, including intellectual property rights and trade in technology products.
4. While the relative financial outlook for NAROs may look less favorable than before, the human resource capabilities of NAROs in many countries have begun to improve, largely because of the growing availability of trained manpower. This, however, may not be true of the weakest among the NARS where other players such as the private sector, NGOs, and universities also have limited capabilities.
5. Capabilities for providing many routine consulting and training services that NARS need are increasingly in evidence in many developing countries today. Private consultants, local training institutes, NGOs, and in some cases, foreign consultants are available for assistance to NARS in several countries. Here again, their availability and the country capacity to absorb such services are perhaps most problematical in the poorer countries. Donors claim that there is increasing competition in the delivery of consulting services to NARS.
ISNAR's recent experiences with its programs offer a number of insights which need to be drawn upon in rethinking its mission and future thrusts.
1. The demands on ISNAR's limited resources are large and diverse, and ISNAR has tried to respond to them in most cases. It is possible that constraints on core funding have made it necessary for ISNAR to respond to highly disparate types of requests for assistance. A predictable consequence of this approach is that scarce resources are spread thinly. And for the organization, the transaction costs of providing small inputs to numerous clients tend to be prohibitively high. Under the circumstances, it has been difficult for anyone to identify and appreciate the "niche" that ISNAR is trying to fill.2. A further consequence of this approach is that learning from its ongoing activities and institutionalizing this knowledge has received low priority in the organization. Clearly, intensity of the workload alone cannot explain this tendency. Other aspects of internal planning and management are no doubt factors that may have contributed to it.
3. The mismatch between the requirements of the research/service agenda and the mix of skills available to deliver them has been a barrier to increased effectiveness. The resulting misallocation of resources and the limited impact of these interventions are the price the institution and clients pay for the persistence of this mismatch. When, for example, staff with formal training in management are very few, research and services in that problem area may not have the relevant knowledge and practices upon which to draw. There is an appreciation of this problem within ISNAR and steps are being taken to remedy it.
4. Long-term capacity building at the country level is yet to receive priority attention in ISNAR. Strengthening NARS is often sought to be achieved by directly solving their problems or providing them with specific tools and services. Most of the services and research of ISNAR is of this nature. While this approach to strengthening local capacity through direct provision of services from far away is often the only way to start, a major problem is that this is a never-ending task, and one for which a small international center is an inadequate instrument. ISNAR's experience with developing and adapting tools for NARS has clearly shown the difficulties faced by its clients in using these aids. Their use and impact will depend a great deal on the context, skills, incentives, and other features of the clients involved. It is difficult and expensive for ISNAR to respond to these types of problems on a global basis. The alternative is to see that local capabilities are built up to absorb and adapt the tools. Forging alliances to facilitate the needed human resource and institutional capabilities is also likely to be more cost effective. In other sectors of the economy, there are several successful examples of this approach. If the main thrust of strengthening NARS is seen as helping NARS to strengthen themselves, then capacity building at the country level should assume greater importance. Sustained improvements in NARS will come about only when local capabilities are created and utilized.
The emerging changes in the operating environment of NARS and the lessons of ISNAR's recent experiences discussed above have important implications for the "niche" ISNAR needs to carve out for itself. The redefinition of one's mission or niche is not an admission of failure or inadequacy. Rather, it is a recognition of the need to reposition the organization in order to be effective and relevant in a changing and complex world. In the Panel's view, ISNAR should develop a distinctive competence in the years to come to lead in (1) the production, acquisition, and delivery of knowledge and information about the policy and institutional environments of NARS, and (2) the provision of services based on this knowledge to improve the management of the organizations, partnerships, and linkages of NARS in the poorest countries. ISNAR can thus create a niche for itself, provided that in the performance of these tasks, it makes use of strategic alliances both to leverage its influence and to facilitate local capacity building. The implications of working towards a niche of this kind are far reaching. It implies, for example, that ISNAR will not only generate new knowledge, but also identify and integrate knowledge available elsewhere that is relevant to the understanding of the policy and institutional environments of NARS. It asserts that ISNAR has or can build a comparative advantage in this area of research. It means that the hallmark of ISNAR's services will be its close links with this research and that service provision will not be an ad hoc matter. Furthermore, it will require ISNAR to expand its influence and impact by jointly undertaking these tasks or working out a division of labor with partners, on both the supply and demand sides of the activities.
The production of the knowledge and information referred to above results in international public goods that can be widely shared and used by all NARS. Comparative information on the policy and performance of NARS, and on the institutional and regulatory environments affecting them, are useful inputs for the policy-making process. Knowledge about new approaches and tools can aid the management of their organizations. ISNAR's familiarity with NARS and links with the academic world give it a unique advantage in generating this knowledge. Its service function in relation to the weaker NARS, on the other hand, entails a customized approach and must clearly be a selective one. Its justification lies in the limited options available to the poorer countries and the limited resources available to ISNAR. By the same token, ISNAR should progressively withdraw from this function as and when alternative sources of service become available to this target group. Over time, its service role in all countries should, for the most part, be limited to strategic alliances for capacity building involving local institutions that will be responsible for service delivery. The power of this combination of public-goods production and limited customized service is derived from the potentially synergistic effects of the research, advisory, and institution-building activities of ISNAR. It can create a niche for ISNAR that can be sustained for the foreseeable future. It is a direction towards which ISNAR ought to move. What is proposed here will call for a sharper focus and greater willingness on the part of ISNAR to set priorities and stay on course.
Recommendation: The Panel recommends that ISNAR define and interpret its niche both to guide its own future planning and to improve the understanding of its role by its clients and the donor community.
ISNAR needs to review its research, service and training thrusts to be sure that they are consistent with its niche. The suggestions given below are not meant to be prescriptive, but rather illustrate the kinds of changes that might strengthen ISNAR's relevance, quality, and impact.
ISNAR's contributions to agricultural research systems have been noted above. Most of this research has focused on the policy environment of NARS. The work on indicator series, financing, planning, and priority setting are largely in this area. While these are useful contributions, ISNAR's current focus on the policy environment is perhaps somewhat narrow. The political economy of policy-making, barriers to research utilization, and other related issues need to be probed more systematically. The ability to identify and deal with emerging issues viewed from a client perspective is a strength that needs to be cultivated. The external environmental changes discussed above call for a broadening and deepening of ISNAR's research. The rationale is that NARS leaders and the policymakers with whom they interact will need a better understanding of both the policy and institutional environments in which they operate.
· Policy research should increasingly examine the regulatory and related institutional issues emerging from the expanding role of the private sector, and of the widening access to new technologies through trade. The changing rules of the game pertaining to intellectual property rights, and their implications for NARS and for the regulatory frameworks and incentive structures within national and global systems may deserve special attention. If others are already working on these issues, ISNAR may need to select carefully the segments of this policy area in which it has a potential comparative advantage.· ISNAR's policy work has paid considerable attention to the different performance dimensions of agricultural research. It can deepen the understanding of research performance by initiating research on the determinants of research performance by focusing on the organizations involved and other appropriate units of analysis. The same approach may have to be adopted for the study of NRM in different regional contexts. Comparative case studies can enrich knowledge creation in this area. Organizational issues such as leadership, structures, and processes, mechanisms such as networking, and strategies of change lend themselves to be probed through this methodology.
· ISNAR can probably do more to integrate research and service by adopting an action research mode, especially where tool development and adaptation are involved. This would entail a deliberate plan to work with a selected set of countries where there is evidence of high-level interest in the utilization of results and of a willingness to follow through on the work. It would give ISNAR an opportunity to observe the progress of the work in real time, to make adaptations jointly with partners, and to assess the impact being made. It would, of course, call for commitments on ISNAR's part too. The lone-ranger approach to technology transfer would have to be abandoned, with much greater participation on the ground and with some continuity. The research output here would be both refined and adapted tools and the learning-by-doing of the partners involved.
· ISNAR has invested heavily in tool development and adaptation in the past few years. As noted above, action research is one way to increase the probability that ISNAR's tools are utilized. If this mode is not feasible, the alternative is to ensure that favorable conditions for adopting these tools exist in the country. A willing and motivated client is a prerequisite for adoption. High-level political commitment is, therefore, an important requirement. An information system will succeed only when there are important users of the information being gathered. Equally important is the fit of the new tool with the rest of the systems and practices of the organization. Ill-fitting tools are likely to be rejected.
· The dissemination of research results needs to receive greater attention in the future. ISNAR has received high marks for some of its scholarly publications. But if it is to impact the NARS audience, it is important to craft suitable vehicles for the delivery of the research messages and their implications to the intended audience. ISNAR's briefing papers are a useful beginning in this regard. But there are other options to consider too. Harvard Business Review is a good example of how this has been done for captains and managers of industry. Most of its articles are research based, but presented in a way that is most readable and understandable to this audience. Some of them are based on a comparative analysis of cases. Periodic flagship seminars for dissemination, held on a regional basis, is another option. This is not to imply that a journal should be started or that certain types of seminars should be held. The important thing to note is that ISNAR should be continually in search of improved ways to communicate effectively with its different publics.
· The Panel has already underscored the importance of focusing the service function of ISNAR more sharply on the weaker NARS. The translation of this policy into practice will require a good deal of rethinking. Selectivity will no doubt entail having to say "no" to some requests, especially when it is obvious that response to them cannot possibly add much value. ISNAR is already doing this to some extent. But a more proactive approach will be to develop proposals anticipating the needs of the weaker clients (e.g., packaging them as action research) and getting them to join as partners in efforts from which they stand to benefit. Some of the tool development work could be claimed to have been of this genre, but it has suffered from the adoption problem discussed above. For a small center, it will not be easy for ISNAR to keep in close touch with its far-flung clients and to update needs assessments. Nevertheless, client needs can be better met through exercises such as categorization of NARS and of their contexts.· Since ISNAR's resources are limited, there is something to be said for a strategy of doing a few things of high visibility and impact, rather than numerous minor things. This is not to say that such choices are always easy or readily available. Nevertheless, a deliberate search for such opportunities may help. At a time when major changes are taking place in the external environment of NARS, there may be opportunities to assist NARS and, in particular, NAROs, in restructuring and reorienting themselves to perform their new roles and functions in the changed context. This could start out with seminars at the regional level and go on to in-depth exercises for some NAROs in their country contexts. Needless to say, ISNAR should first equip itself to do this through its own research and reflection, drawing upon the studies/experiences of others in this field. In the field of business, this is a major service that consulting firms offer to top management. It is often in the wake of such restructuring and reorientation that the adoption of specific tools and methods takes place in large organizations.
· Institutionalization of the capability to deliver services is important. When services are based on the skills of one or two persons only, both skills and memory tend to move out with them. The small size of the center does make this a difficult problem to cope with. But client needs can be adequately met only when the services provided are based on sustainable institutional rather than purely personal competencies.
· The excess demand for ISNAR's services is partly a function of the "free good" nature of this activity. For NARS who cannot be classified as weak, or have access to other resources, there may be a case for levying "user charges" both to test real interest and commitment and also to recover some of the costs involved. A distinction should be made between services demanded by clients and partnership efforts such as action research from which both ISNAR and the clients expect to benefit.
· ISNAR was established by the CG system to fill a major gap that was identified in respect to agricultural research policy and management. By definition, responding to this challenge required ISNAR to work on a global basis. Considering the limitations under which it operates, ISNAR has done a creditable job of creating widespread awareness of the need to improve agricultural research policy and management, as well as contributing to an expanding knowledge and service base to strengthen these functions in NARS. A centralized approach to meeting this need in the developing world, however, is not a sustainable option. Multiple centers and groups with excellence in this area and in closer proximity to NARS need to emerge over time as, indeed, is the case in other fields of research, consulting, and training. In order for this to happen, there has to be a realization that investment in capacity building for this purpose should take place in different countries and regions of the world. Although this may look like helping the competition, there is no option but to take up this challenge if the mandate of strengthening NARS is to be met on a global basis.· In the Panel's view, this implies a major shift for ISNAR from its focus on training as the primary means for human resource development to long-term institutional capacity building in the sense of enhancing the supply of institutional competence (outside NARS) to deliver not only training but also services and research to NARS in developing-country contexts. Training linked to specific research, or service projects and seminars to disseminate new knowledge, will certainly be required. But on balance, ISNAR should recognize that its direct outreach capabilities in this area are limited and can be expanded only at the cost of other valued functions. Other ways have therefore to be found to leverage its impact. There is no implication here that long-term capacity building of this kind can or should be done in all countries simultaneously.
· The research-service-training mix of functions that ISNAR has promoted can be multiplied globally only through the participation of large numbers of trained resource persons available in close proximity to the NARS. The development of these capabilities may call for an investment in a long-term faculty development program with a focus on research management. This is a potential vehicle to augment the supply of well-trained experts who could become resource persons for the NARS in all regions in training and service delivery. In order to strengthen local institutional capabilities, candidates should be selected from the faculty or resource persons already working with existing local institutions. A critical mass of young persons trained in this manner could well become the core of the competence in the training centers, universities, and management institutes to which NARS could turn for help. Thirty years ago, an international teachers program of this kind played a similar role in the field of business management. It was managed by a consortium of schools, and the products of this program are the leaders of many business schools in developing countries today. Similar examples can be found in the health policy and management field, too.
· ISNAR could act as a catalyst in the development of the program mentioned above and it may help extend its own work globally. But to be able to lead this endeavor, ISNAR must be seen as a center of excellence and as a reliable and substantive partner by others who might collaborate on this front. Programs of this kind will call for the integration of multiple and complex inputs such as curricula and training material development, faculties of good quality, careful selection of candidates, field contacts and follow-up work, financing and logistical support at different levels. There are good institutions in both developed and developing countries that could mount such a program. But the role that ISNAR should play in this initiative needs to be carefully thought through.
· As implied above, there is yet another way in which ISNAR can assist in long-term capacity building for agricultural research management in developing countries. The focus here is on the development of institutional capabilities in countries outside of NARS so that the mix of research, service, and training that ISNAR offers could become available on a large scale in the settings in which NARS operate. Capacity building here refers to the development of the capabilities of institutions such as local or regional organizations, academic centers, etc., that could become the focal points for these functions in proximity to NARS. Apart from faculty training and upgrading, this will call for the creation of new or existing centers with the capacity to plan and deliver the kind of services referred to above. Some of the larger NARS have already established or are likely to establish their own specialized centers for research management mainly to meet their internal training needs. Strategic alliances with them on a selective basis can be used to strengthen them and to leverage ISNAR's own work. The collaboration required here is not for an isolated activity or service. Rather, the endeavor should be to develop the target institution on sound lines so that its quality and relevance are enhanced in the entire spectrum of research, service, and training or a part of it. ISNAR's role here should be that of a technical collaborator in institution building. This may well call for basing some of the staff or other experts in the institutions in developing countries that ISNAR collaborates with. A medium-, if not long-term, relationship will be called for to achieve this objective, and funding will obviously be an important issue. ISNAR has already initiated some work in this area. The implications of this long-term task and the ability to carry this burden along with other functions are matters that deserve special attention.
6.5.1 Reaffirming the mission
6.5.2 Divesting activities
6.5.3 Influencing the agendas of donors
6.5.4 The need for a supportive mix of skills and structures
During the period under review, ISNAR's activities and outputs have grown substantially compared to the preceding period, and its impact on NARS has been on the whole most positive. Service has remained the major thrust of the organization. The Panel is unanimous in its conclusion that ISNAR's mission continues to be as relevant today as it was in previous years.
External environmental changes and a reassessment of NARS' needs, however, may require ISNAR to review its directions more carefully. Two important directional changes are implied in the foregoing discussion of ISNAR's future. One is the need for ISNAR to position itself in the research-based end of the service spectrum, thus leaving the less research-based part of the spectrum to other service providers. This is by no means a plea for ISNAR to leave the service arena. Rather, it is a recognition of the need to exploit more fully the comparative advantage of ISNAR and its role as a provider of public goods, and as a response to the increasing competition by others to deliver the less research-based services to NARS.
The second is the need to move upstream in terms of developing-country capacity building, which, in turn, will limit ISNAR's role in direct service delivery to NARS. While in the short run, this may seem like a contradictory message to ISNAR, a decline in its direct service delivery role will occur only as local institutional capabilities get strengthened. Resource availability will no doubt determine the pace of progress of the latter. These new directions will require some restructuring and reorientation within ISNAR. Strategic shifts of this nature in the context of declining real resources will necessitate painful choices as to the activities and functions that need to be divested or limited over a period of time in order to create space for new and more relevant tasks. This has implications for the way staffing requirements and budgets should be assessed and restructured. It is clear that decisions of this kind need to take into account the types and intensity of competition that are emerging in ISNAR's area of work. The Board and Management should be clear about the trade-offs involved and plan for the transition so that dislocations are minimized.
Recommendation: The Panel recommends that ISNAR move more towards the research-based end of the service spectrum, gradually leaving the less research-based part to other service providers.Recommendation: The Panel recommends that ISNAR move up in the capacity-building ladder, concentrating more on building institutional capabilities both within and outside NARS in countries and regions so that the functions/services being provided by it from a distance could be increasingly performed by appropriate organizations/groups in closer proximity to NARS.
ISNAR, as well as other centers, rightly argues that constraints on core funding and the need to seek special project funding on a continuous basis make it difficult to plan coherent programs and adhere to priorities. Given the current international scene, it is unlikely that this trend will be reversed in the foreseeable future. Under the circumstances, it is best for ISNAR to see how the donor agenda and interests could be made to reinforce the work that it would like to undertake. One implication of this is that ISNAR should try to influence donors at the stage at which they formulate their agenda and initiatives, and not after they have announced their plans and priorities. If potentially useful concepts and needs are conveyed to donors at the agenda-planning stage, there is a greater chance of their influencing the donors' final agenda, which, in turn, could make it easier for ISNAR to mobilize funds in support of its own priorities. This, however, would require ISNAR to invest in its own R&D as a basis for generating new ideas.
The Panel has already commented on the need for ISNAR to work towards a more suitable mix of skills and experience to adequately match institutional tasks. This should not be viewed in the context of service delivery alone. Professionals with the right skills and backgrounds are also necessary to draw upon emerging knowledge in relevant fields and to link up with world-class experts. If productive alliances with outstanding centers of excellence are to be formed, partners should be able to communicate well with their ISNAR counterparts and value the linkages. Entry into the area of upstream capacity building may call for professional expertise that is not in adequate supply in-house.
The organizational structures created to facilitate professional work are seldom fully satisfactory in any institution. Often, both organizational and personal or historical factors tend to influence the choice of structures. In an organization that faces a rapidly changing environment, while some fluidity has to be maintained, a constant watch has to be kept on the coherence of the themes and staff working on them, and on how well the structure facilitates cooperative behavior and group learning.
Recommendation: The Panel recommends that ISNAR reformulate its strategy in light of the changes in its environment and its assessment of the emerging challenges, review the activities/functions it needs to divest in order to address the new challenges and tasks it plans to undertake, and specify the changes in the mix of skills it will attempt to put in place in support of its strategy.
