5.1. ICRAF's Organizational Structure
5.2. Leadership
5.3. Research Division
5.4. Training and Information Division
ICRAF's current organization chart is shown in Annex VII. Overall authority is exercised by a fourteen person self-perpetuating Board of Trustees that includes the Chair of CIFOR's Board as an ex-officio member. The Director General (DG) is the Chief Executive Officer of the Centre. He is advised in this capacity by a Management Committee (MC) comprised of the Deputy Director General (DDG), the three Division Directors (Research, Training and Information, and Finance and Administration), the Special Projects Coordinator, and the Public Affairs Officer. The MC meets once a month and acts as a forum for decision-making and for information exchange amongst senior management. Apart from the MC there are four standing committees: publications; library; information systems; and procurement. Occasionally special task forces are established to deal with specific issues, such as the one on the new headquarters building extension.
The ICRAF management structure has been evolving significantly in recent years as the institution has grown and begun to transform itself into a research organization. Nevertheless, the Panel believes that if ICRAF is to function effectively, its internal processes will need to be improved further. For example, many scientists believe they are still spending too little time on research. Specific issues will be discussed in the various sections of this chapter, but here the Panel suggests that the general philosophy of ICRAF should be one of passing more responsibility to lower levels of management, with clear identification of authority, responsibility, and accountability at each level of management as the guiding principle.
5.2.1. Board of Trustees
5.2.2. Assessment
5.2.3. Senior management
5.2.4. Assessment
The principal functions of the Board of Trustees are to set policies and monitor management actions. Within this broad remit the Board's principal duties comprise oversight of strategy, periodic reviews, financial integrity, personnel policy and senior appointments. They also cover regular approval of ICRAF's programmes and annual budget. To carry out these responsibilities the Board splits itself into four standing committees: (i) Executive and Finance; (ii) Programme; (iii) Nominations; and (iv) Audit.
Members of the Panel participated in a number of Board meetings during the preliminary phase and were able to conduct interviews with several Board Members. Additionally, the Nominating Committee met during the EPMR preliminary phase. Hence, the Panel's evaluation of the three other committees (Executive and Finance, Audit and Programme) relied on a combination of prior minutes and impressions gained from interviews with individual trustees.
The Panel was impressed by the commitment, enthusiasm and professionalism of the Board of Trustees and particularly of the Board Chair. Recent discussions in Board meetings have focused on substantive issues, process changes, and particularly in the last two years, strategy. To further increase its effectiveness, the Panel suggests that, because of the recent significant changes at ICRAF, the Board may wish to allocate a portion of the agenda at its annual meeting to a discussion on ways to improve its business and composition.
In general, the Panel found committee deliberations to be satisfactory. The Panel suggests that more action be taken to broaden the range of skills and experience of the Board, and to provide members the opportunity to rotate across various committees. Additionally, after hearing Board discussion, the Panel suggests that no member of management should be a member of the Audit Committee and that the Internal Auditor, in addition to reporting to the DG, must have direct access to the Board.
The Panel found an open and responsive relationship between the Board and Senior Management. Apart from the regular annual meeting of the Board in March/April there is frequent consultation throughout the year between the DG and the DDG and the various Committee Chairmen. Both parties seem happy that communications are such as to allow effective working relationships. Nonetheless, deliberations of the Board appeared to lack the level of precise detail that would normally be expected at such meetings. This was at least partly due to data deficiencies or to time constraints. The discussion of the planned expansion of headquarters facilities was an example of this. While Boards, by definition, are not called upon to manage, they do have an obligation to decide whether the funds and assets of the Centre are being used productively. The Panel suggests that the Board and Senior Management agree on specific steps to increase the level and quality of information the Board receives.
The Panel is pleased to note that the Board has recently established a process by which annual goals are mutually agreed upon with the DG with respect to his own job. The Panel feels that goals of this sort will give the DG a clear indication of what is expected of him and provide the Board with an equally clear indication of where the DG believes his priorities should lie.
The execution of policies established by the Board and day-to-day management of ICRAF are the responsibility of the DG and Director level staff. The DG's office includes the DDG, and officers dealing with special projects, public affairs, protocol, and associated support staff. In terms of functions this office covers central administration, external relations and contacts, planning, fund-raising and the oversight of new initiatives. Additionally, the DDG chairs the Procurement Committee, which meets monthly and deals with all matters related to acquisitions of services and supplies of materials, equipment, etc.
ICRAF's shift to strategic and applied research, its global mandate, and its entry into the CGIAR present it with numerous opportunities to address agroforestry needs. Planning for that shift has been a key task of senior management in the past two years. ICRAF has not yet completed the CGIAR planning cycle due to its recent entry into the system. Its strategy, ICRAF The Way Ahead was prepared during 1991-92, and was built on an earlier document entitled ICRAF: Strategy to the Year 2000. TAC commented on a draft of the strategy in June 1991, and in the early part of 1992 three consultative meetings were held with national programs and other institutions in Asia, Latin America and Africa.
The Draft Medium Term Plan (MTP) was prepared between September and December 1992. It is scheduled for discussion with the Board of Trustees in early 1993 and will be presented to TAC in March. TAC will then review the MTP simultaneously with all the other CGIAR centres. The MTP lays out a research and training agenda over the next five years. It describes in detail the activities planned in each of the four research and three training and information programmes that were initially discussed in the strategy. Each programme is comprised of a small number of projects, for which ICRAF describes objectives, activities, outputs, indicators, and impact.
ICRAF has a well defined annual resource allocation process. Annual budgets are prepared using a bottom-up methodology, largely extrapolating past expenditures, and incorporating sources of funds. The process has been as follows. In January/February (11 months before the start of the fiscal year) programme leaders prepare budget estimates for review by the Management Committee, and in March/April these are presented to the Programme Committee of the Board. Following any revisions, the annual budget is presented to TAC for review at the mid-year meetings. Following that, in September, an Annual Programme Review is held at which detailed cost centre budgets are prepared. After donors' pledges at International Centres' Week in November, the Management Committee matches available funds with the cost centre budgets. In January the new budget for the fiscal year is incorporated into the management information system and is the basis for financial reporting throughout the year.
The Panel would like to commend the high level of activity, energy and guidance that the new DG has brought to the programmes and staff at ICRAF. It notes also that his research orientation has moved ICRAF's agenda in a strategic research direction. He has been ably supported by the DDG who has provided a wide range of managerial talents that appear to have contributed to ICRAF's success. The Panel has recently been provided with job descriptions for the DG and DDG, and is satisfied that there is a sensible division of responsibility between the two offices.
The ICRAF strategy is a comprehensive statement of worldwide agroforestry needs that gives a sense of what the institution would like to be, and its focus on research and dissemination programmes. The MTP identifies 17 research and 6 dissemination projects. The Panel found, however, that an essential link in the planning process - between what ICRAF sees as the universe of agroforestry needs and what its selection from those ought to be - was missing. Neither the strategy nor the MTP clearly identifies what ICRAF's comparative advantage is, i.e. what the centre does best or, alternatively, what comparative advantage it intends to build over the next five years. Without this linking step in the process it is difficult to assess whether the programmes and projects identified in the MTP are the appropriate ones for ICRAF. The Panel suggests, therefore that ICRAF incorporates a statement and justification of its perceived comparative advantage (or alternatively the comparative advantage it seeks to build) in its MTP. Chapter 3 contains a related recommendation on priority setting in research.
5.3.1. Assessment
5.3.2. Research Support Services
5.3.3. Assessment
5.3.4. Information Systems and Computing
5.3.5. Assessment
The Research Division is the responsibility of the Director of Research (DR), who reports to the DG and is one of the three division directors. ICRAF's research activities are organized under a matrix management system with two axes of control - geographical region (agroecological zone) and research programme (Table 5.1). There are six regions and four research programmes under current planning arrangements. It is difficult to summarise the key features of this structure adequately since it is in a process of transition, determined both by ICRAF's recent change in institutional status - from an information agency with some limited research capacity to a fully-fledged research organisation, and by on-going management discussions. Over the past year or so, for example, there has been progress to reshape programmes and focus some of them on strategic research.
Table 5.1. Research Programme Matrix
|
Agroecological Zones and Ecoregions |
HUMID TROPICS |
SUB-HUMID TROPICS |
SEMI-ARID TROPICS |
GLOBAL | |||
|
Programmes |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
|
1. Characterization and Impact |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. MPT Improvement |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. Component Interactions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. Systems Improvement |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The four research programmes are managed by programme coordinators (PCs) who have a range of responsibilities: (i) ensuring scientific quality of their programme; (ii) standardization of methodologies across agroecological zones, (iii) scientific reporting; (iv) budget management and financial planning; and (v) personnel matters. Research programmes are sub-divided into 17 Projects, each one under the responsibility of a lead scientist (LS) who provides the intellectual leadership for the project but has no administrative responsibilities as a result of this role. The effective authority and responsibility underlying the matrix structure at ICRAF is on the programme rather than the regional axis. The identification of new research activities at the regional level is done by a regional coordinator (RC) with the assistance of biannual steering committee meetings. Membership of such committees includes representatives from national governments, NARS, other international centres and appropriate ICRAF personnel. The RCs liaise with donors and report directly to the DR.
The Panel is in agreement in principle with these new arrangements for research management, since it believes that a research institution should be organized on a programme/project basis. The Panel also believes that with the new mandate, the shift to strategic research and the proposed significant expansion of ICRAF, research will carry heavier responsibilities relative to the other divisions.
Recommendation: The Panel recommends that the Board consider establishing the position of Deputy Director General for Research and eliminating the current post of Director of Research.
The Panel agrees with the thrust of research programme management, as recently constituted, and feels that it is in line with the principle of the devolution of authority, responsibility and accountability stated at the outset of this chapter. For the matrix management system to work effectively, the Panel suggests that the Lead Scientists of the Projects have the authority, responsibility and accountability necessary for them to manage the science of their Projects effectively. Given the size and geographical dispersion of ICRAF, the Panel suggests that job descriptions for the programme coordinators, regional coordinators, and lead scientists be developed along that principle.
The Panel is concerned about the future management of major new research initiatives. The current situation appears to be one where "Alternatives to Slash and Burn" is being managed by the Special Projects Coordinator under the direction of the DG, and the East African Highlands ecoregional initiative by the DDG. The Panel understands the need for certain fluidity in the process. Nevertheless, since all these initiatives are mostly concerned with research, the Panel believes there must be a clear line of authority through the DR and suggests that, once negotiated, these initiatives be incorporated expeditiously into the management structure described above (and in section 5.4.) and confirmed in the MTP.
In research management at the divisional level, the Panel believes that current arrangements on cross programme coordination, project inception and evaluation, and priority setting are not optimal. Accordingly the Panel suggests that the DR chair a Research Advisory Committee (RAC), consisting of at least the four PCs, to deal with these issues.
Research support services are supplied through the office of the DR. Statistical services are also supplied through the DR's office, and consist of a biometrician and two computer programmers whose functions are to assist the research programmes in areas such as research design, modelling and analysis of experimental results. Laboratory services are limited at ICRAF, although there is a small laboratory already operational at Machakos servicing Programme 3.
One important activity that appears to have made considerable progress is the development of a computerized experimental database under the responsibility of the DR's assistant. This will ultimately provide a detailed source of data on experimental protocols, highlights of results, site characterizations and publication avenues. There are a number of references in the Report to the need for additional statistical support and the question of balance across disciplines is developed in Chapter 3.1.5. Given the need to maintain quality during a period of rapid expansion, it is essential that statistical support be increased.
Recommendation: The Panel recommends that an additional biometrician be appointed now to maintain essential research support and strengthen science quality.
Information systems at ICRAF are managed through the Information Systems Support Unit (ISSU) whose function is to provide computer hardware and software services throughout ICRAF. It is located within the Finance and Administration Division, but responsibility for the development and integration of information technology in ICRAF as a whole rests with the MC. The Information Systems Committee (ISC) was established in August 1992 as a replacement for the Computer Committee. It is chaired by ICRAF's biometrician and its secretary is the Coordinator of the Information Programme. It acts as a forum for information exchange amongst ICRAF users and between them and the ISSU whose head, the computer manager, sits on the ISC.
Within the last year ICRAF has commissioned a study on the provision of a local area network (LAN) for headquarters. Because of a shortage of funds, a large scale installation was postponed and was replaced by a less ambitious plan that will provide five mini-LANs for specific ICRAF groups.
In the Panel's view ICRAF will not be able to fulfil its new role effectively as a strategic research institution with an international mandate unless it has adequate information resources and computing facilities to do the job. At present it does not. There are individual personal computers throughout headquarters, especially in financial management, but there are no LANs. In addition, there is a lack of computing expertise amongst ICRAF staff as a whole. With the exception of a small number of scientists, for example, it is difficult to identify people who could perform effectively on the ISC.
ICRAF's senior management should act to give information management and computing technology a higher priority. The Panel suggests that it prepare a strategy that charts the steps required to collect and manage information resources and to carry out modelling research in the context of its proposed research and dissemination activities over the next five years. The lead for this should come from the MC in close consultation with the ISC and the RAC. In order to advise effectively the ISC will need independent consultancy input.
The Training and Information Division has a series of monthly meetings (one at the divisional level and one for each of the three programmes) to exchange information and to deal formally with relevant business. There is also a quarterly meeting of professional and a biannual meeting of support staff, used to exchange information and discuss divisional matters more generally. Finally two of the four standing committees of ICRAF (Publications and Library) are located within this division. The Publications Committee meets every three months and facilitates all matters concerned with reviewing, prioritizing, designing and distributing ICRAF's publications. The Library Committee meets monthly and covers all matters relating to the lending and acquisition of documents, journals, data bases, books, etc. Both committees advise the ICRAF MC as and when necessary. Public awareness matters in ICRAF have in the past been handled through the Information Programme, but ICRAF's current policy is to place responsibility for this in the hands of the Public Affairs Officer who is part of the DG's office.
The Panel is satisfied that the management of this Division is appropriate and effective for its current operations and future expansion plans. The Panel believes that the guiding principles for management expressed at the outset of the chapter and described in some detail under the Research Division hold equally for the Training and Information Division. The Panel suggests that job descriptions for Programme Coordinators and Senior Officers be developed according to the principles of authority, responsibility and accountability.
