1. APPROACH
In January 1992, on behalf of the Fourth IRRI External Review Panel, the Executive Secretary of TAC distributed a questionnaire to 150 individuals in various institutions in Asia (South and East), West Asia and North Africa (WANA), sub-Sahara Africa and Latin America, who had some professional links with rice research. The basis for selection of participants was the mailing list provided by IRRI.
The objective of the survey was to elicit respondents' opinions on (a) the importance to them of various programmes and activities of IRRI over the past five years (i.e. 1987-91), and (b) the expected importance of IRRI's work during the next decade (i.e. 1992-2001).
The respondents were asked to evaluate each area of IRRI's work in terms of a ranking using the following scale: 1, extremely valuable; 2, moderately valuable; 3, slightly valuable; 4, not valuable at all; 5, not known. Each programme area was evaluated in terms of research, training and information activities. The programme areas were subdivided according to activities within those areas. For the programmes and activities during the next decade, the evaluation of research was in terms of the four rice ecosystems (i.e. irrigated, rainfed lowland, upland, deepwater and tidal wetland). The respondents were also asked to evaluate the effectiveness of collaboration with IRRI, and relevance of IRRI's strategy and work plan.
In addition to the above numerical evaluation, respondents were also requested to comment on: coverage and relevance of IRRI's activities; IRRI's new organization structure, operations and programmes; IRRI's collaborative mechanisms; IRRI's major strengths and weaknesses; and IRRI's major contributions.
Although the responses were anonymous, the respondents were asked to indicate their current position, type of institution, relationship to IRRI, and period of association with IRRI. Of the 65 responses received (representing 43% return), 52 were from Asia. Of the total, about half were scientists and half administrators.
Responses by programme area for each activity type (i.e. research, training and information) for the past five years are summarized in Table 1, and for the next decade in Table 2. Responses on research by programme area for each ecosystem (i.e. irrigated, rainfed lowland, upland, deepwater and tidal wetland) for the next decade are summarized in Table 3. Responses regarding the effectiveness of IRRI's collaboration, and strategy and five-year work plan are presented in Table 4.
2. RESULTS
Based on this survey, NARS clearly regard IRRI's work with genetic resources - improvement, conservation, evaluation and dissemination - as the Centre's most valuable activity.
2.1 Numerical Evaluation
The score achieved for all IRRI's activities combined for the past five years (1987-91) was 2.2 (Table 1). Research, training and information activities were considered more or less of comparable importance with average scores of 2.1, 2.3 and 2.2 respectively. In terms of specific programmes, activities related to genetic resources and IRTP/INGER were considered the most valuable (1.7 and 1.6 respectively), and those related to water management (2.8) and farm machinery (2.8) the least valuable. Relatively lower importance was also given to activities related to ARFSN (2.4), pest ecology and biology (2.4), management of soil physical and chemical properties (2.4), impact of new technology (2.4), and constraints on rice productivity (2.5).
The scientists placed relatively less value than the administrators on IRRI's research on genetic resources (1.7 vs 1.2), water management (3.0 vs 2.5), constraints on rice productivity (2.6 vs 2.1) and ARFSN (3.4 vs 2.2). With regards to responses in training and information activities, the scientists placed a greater value on IRRI's training in agronomic and physiological characteristics (1.9 vs 2.5) and on pest ecology and biology (2.1 vs 2.6).
The combined importance given to IRRI's future (1992-2001) research activities was similar (2.0) to the value of its research activities during the past five years (2.1) (Table 2). However, IRRI's future activities in terms of training and information were rated more highly (1.8 and 1.6 respectively) than the assessed value of such activities during the past five years (2.3 and 2.2 respectively). In terms of specific programmes, research related to genetic resources conservation and dissemination, germplasm improvement and crop protection all scored 1.9, with research activities on yield potential, biotic stress resistance and IPM considered the most important (1.8). For training and information activities, biotechnology applications (1.4 and 1.3) and IPM (1.5 and 1.3) were considered the most important.
There were no contrasting differences in responses between the scientists and the administrators with regards to future training and information activities across all programme areas. However, the scientists placed a lower value on IRRI's future research in all ecosystems than the administrators (2.2 vs 1.8), particularly so for biotechnology applications (2.4 vs 1.6), tillage and soil physical properties (2.7 vs 2.1), biology and ecology of pests and beneficial organisms (2.4 vs 1.9), and systems analysis and modelling (2.4 vs 1.9).
The greatest future importance was placed on the irrigated rice ecosystem (1.7) relative to other ecosystems - with deepwater and tidal wetlands rice ecosystem judged as being the least important with a score of 2.6, and rainfed lowland rice and upland rice ecosystems with a score of 2.0 (Table 3). The relatively greater importance of germplasm related activities and IPM was clear in all ecosystems except in the deepwater and tidal wetlands.
Amongst the four IRRI-coordinated networks, respondents who are network participants rated INGER as having the greatest future importance (1.2), ARFSN the lowest importance (2.1), and INSURF and IPMN intermediate (1.6 and 1.8). In the case of the rainfed lowland rice research consortium and the upland consortium, the former achieved a score of 1.4, and the latter 1.7 from those respondents who are consortia participants (Table 4). However, the scientists placed even greater future importance to rainfed lowland consortium than the administrators (1.0 vs 1.6), whereas the reverse was true in the case of ARFSN (3.0 vs 2.0).
The future values of the four activities involved in Country Projects were all considered to be about the same in importance (1.8 to 2.3), with an order of preference for strengthening research activities (1.8), followed by institution capacity enhancement (2.0) and human resources development (2.0), followed by strategic and long-term planning (2.3) (Table 4). However, the scientists have a relatively lower opinion about the future importance of country projects than do the administrators: 2.6 vs 1.7 for institution capacity enhancement, 2.8 vs 1.5 for human resources development, 1.9 vs 1.6 for strengthening research activities, and 2.4 vs 2.2 for strategic and long-term planning.
In the case of IRRI's strategy and five-year work plan there was high agreement (1.4) with regards to ecosystem-based programmes. IRRI's new organization structure and operations, and IRRI's interactions with NARS during its last strategic planning exercise both received a score of 2.2 (Table 4), without contrasting differences in responses between the scientists and the administrators.
2.2 Respondents' Comments
Respondents' comments provided further supplementary insights to some of the trends summarized above. A select set of comments is reproduced below to indicate the range of responses received and to note some interesting individual comments.
2.2.1 Coverage and Relevance of IRRI's Activities
· IRRI should establish further collaborative research involving shuttle breeding and biotechnology (administrator, Asia).· We basically agree with the coverage of IRRI's research and training activities. We hope that IRRI will organize workshops with extensive coverage of rice scientists to discuss rice science and exchange information (scientist, Latin America).
· IRRI should concentrate on advanced training and delegate the basic training to some national and regional programmes such as Egypt, China and India (scientist, Africa).
· We need IRRI to provide training in the field of basic research (administrator, Asia).
· IRRI's activities are impressive and dynamic with regard to their coverage and relevance to the national programmes (administrator, Asia).
· IRRI should start more training programmes at post-doc level by providing opportunities to work with a qualified and experienced scientist on new and frontier areas of technology such as biotechnology application, BNF, hybrid rice, farm machinery development, etc (administrator, Asia).
· Relatively less African scientists benefit from IRRI training compared to other continents (scientist, Africa).
2.2.2 IRRI's New Organization Structure, Operation and Programmes
· Ecosystems research will lead the various groups to isolation. More interaction of various disciplines is needed (scientist, Asia).· IRRI's new organization structure, operation and programmes are well tuned towards the requirements of rice-producing countries and as such future rice production will be sustained to meet the needs of the ever-increasing population (administrator, Asia).
· I very much appreciate the strategy of IRRI toward 2000 (scientist, Asia).
· Completely agree. However, some of the network programmes such as INSURF, ARFSN and INGER need new orientation and direction to save them from falling into the "routine" and to minimize duplication. Although it is impossible to arrest the biological effects of aging, we should try to arrest physiological aging, to the extent possible so as to prioritize the issues and to come out with technology development which will have maximum impact with the least expenditure or by involving the least number of factors. In frontier areas of technology, such as hybrid rice, IRRI is yet to make any significant contribution, unlike in a country like China. We should also address other areas, such as biotechnology and BNF, in a more principled way, although not from the point of view of having more publications. The current trend of yield decline or yield plateauing in many irrigated rice areas in Asia as also the declining level of responses to applied inputs, unlike in the initial days of our green revolution merits our attention and detailed study (scientist, Asia).
· Their organizational structure is very good. But I do not know what division nematology belongs to - entomology or pathology division? (scientist, Asia).
· Strategy on varietal improvement is very good. However, management of rice ecosystem resources and constraints has not been spelled out (administrator, Asia).
· We believe that IRRI's rice research programmes in rainfed and upland rice ecosystems and cross-ecosystems are necessary because both are predominant in plants in Latin American and African countries (scientist, Latin America).
· IRRI should pay great attention to developing ultra high-yielding varieties with new plant types in Japonica rice and not only Indica (administrator, Asia).
· The ecosystem-based research programme would allow for an easier identification of research priorities and a straightforward relationship with national programmes (scientist, Latin America).
· I fully endorse the present ecosystem-based research programmes of IRRI since focus is now on programme rather than on discipline, which ensures interdisciplinary efforts to tackle important issues (administrator, Asia).
· Rainfed lowland rice has great potential for maximum exploitation. The area under rainfed lowland ecosystem is substantial (scientist, Africa).
2.2.3 IRRI's Collaborative Mechanisms
· While IRRI should concentrate on upstream research, it is necessary that their links to national systems also be strengthened. This is particularly true through consortia and networks (administrator, Asia).· The tool of INGER that is integrated by national and international rice research institutions at an international level is very important because through it breeding materials which have been developed by national and international programmes can be exchanged and evaluated in a cooperative effort, and one can look at the strengthening and improving of rice production strategies. Besides INGER's assessment, the new germplasm for biotic and abiotic stresses helps agronomic characterization and grain quality in the new breeding lines, and when this process ends the best materials are included in new regional or international nurseries (scientist, Latin America).
· The collaborative programme is very effective. IRRI has played a key role in the network programmes, particularly running very effective training courses and site visit tours. This has contributed significantly to strengthening national programmes. This sort of impact of rice production technology could be seen in all Asian rice-growing countries. I have personally noticed this change in Asian countries. For example, I have developed a very strong national Azolla research programme and the major input was given by IRRI in the 1980s (scientist, Asia).
· Collaborative mechanisms have been very effective. It is suggested that these should be further strengthened and continued by contributing more scientific research, training and visits (scientist, Asia).
· Networks as presently constituted have marginal benefit. ARFSN contributed immensely in the early to late 1980s. Its focus and leadership must change (administrator, Asia).
· I think that IRRI has to have more discussion with the people involved in the country project, with the researchers, and with the farmers for understanding the real problems. I also think that some of IRRI's staff who work for a short time in a country (1, 3, 4 months) are not efficient. One of our main problems is water control, so I think that it is better and more efficient for IRRI to make more effort to help us with this matter (e.g. activities about "rainfed" must be studied more) (scientist, Africa).
2.2.4 IRRI's Major Strengths and Weaknesses
(a) Strengths:
· Free exchange of material, information, human resource development programme, leadership and above all vision (administrator, Asia).· Unlimited facilities and a band of highly qualified scientists at the headquarters. The strong and cordial professional relationship it maintains with NARS through networks and country-oriented projects (scientist, Asia).
· Identification of appropriate germplasm for specific environments and germplasm enhancement; training; information generation and dissemination; and crop management (administrator, Africa).
· IRRI is an institution recognized for its excellence in rice research and training, and having the best infrastructure and the most experienced research scientists (administrator, Asia).
· Germplasm exchange and distribution has been very effective (scientist, Africa).
· Multidisciplinary approach to rice research and rice production, which permits greater insights into the impact of new technologies at the farm level (scientist, Africa).
(b) Weaknesses:
· Water management (scientist, Asia).· Many young scientists at IRRI lack a thorough understanding of the rice ecosystems, major problems and constraints associated with small farmer rice-growing conditions in Asia, although they are highly qualified in their own disciplines (administrator, Asia).
· Strategy to overcome the yield ceiling has not yet been found. Weak application of biotechnology in rice improvement. Hybrid rice should be researched in quicker and effective ways (administrator, Asia).
· I do not see any major weaknesses which should be of concern at this stage. The only weakness is about its location not being representative of different rice ecosystems is now being overcome through consortia approach involving NARS sites (administrator, Asia).
· Breeding under rainfed and upland conditions, especially with regard to the latter, because it is very difficult to obtain good results in a short time (scientist, Latin America).
· No required level of research effort for improving rice productivity in rainfed ecologies (scientist, Asia).
2.2.5 IRRI's Major Contributions
· IRRI has given a great contribution in terms of germplasm development, evaluation methodologies for pests, diseases and environmental stresses (scientist, Latin America).· IRRI's contribution through improved germplasm has helped in considerably increasing both the rice production and productivity under irrigated ecosystems (administrator, Asia).
· IRRI has contributed tremendously to research, training and transfer of technology. IRRI has helped rice-growing countries to be self-dependent in rice (scientist, Asia).
· New varieties and genetic material; research methodology in soil fertility and farming systems, short-term training of scientists personnel in methodologies. IRRN, reprint service, technical bulletins and book at cheaper costs (administrator, Asia).
· New kinds of plants. Parents for our breeding programmes. Interchange of knowledge with other countries and interactions with several other institutions (scientist, Latin America).
· Research programmes are addressing well most of the issues included in the revised strategy. Yet, intensified efforts on rainfed lowland and upland research aiming at improved productivity would be desirable (administrator, Asia).
· The major contributions IRRI has made is by providing various rice collections and testing methods. Through IRRI's collections we managed to release high-yielding varieties with good resistance to major pests such as BPH, rice blast, gall midge, bacterial leaf blight. My country is intensively and successfully putting IRRI's varieties into practice (scientists, Asia).
· Research: the flow of improved germplasm. Training and information dissemination: training on GEU, biotechnology, etc. has been valuable for our scientists working with rice; also, IRRI's publications help us to keep up-to-date with the newest information in the rice world (scientist, Latin America).
Table 1. Evaluation of Importance of IRRI's Activities, 1987-1991.
|
Programme Area |
Research |
Training |
Information |
Total | |
|
1. Genetic Evaluation and Utilization (GEU) |
1.6 (0.11) |
1.9 (0.14) |
1.9 (0.14) |
1.8 (0.08) | |
|
|
1.1 Genetic Resources |
1.4 (0.09) |
1.9 (0.14) |
1.8 (0.12) |
1.7 (0.07) |
|
|
1.2 Agronomic & Physiological Characteristics |
1.8 (0.13) |
2.2 (0.20) |
2.1 (0.15) |
2.0 (0.09) |
|
|
1.3 Durable Pest Resistance |
1.8 (0.15) |
2.1 (0.17) |
1.9 (0.13) |
1.9 (0.09) |
|
2. Pest Management |
2.1 (0.15) |
2.5 (0.20) |
2.0 (0.16) |
2.2 (0.10) | |
|
|
2.1 Integrated Pest Management (IPM) |
2.2 (0.14) |
2.0 (0.13) |
2.0 (0.11) |
2.1 (0.08) |
|
|
2.2 Pest Ecology & Biology |
2.4 (0.13) |
2.5 (0.16) |
2.2 (0.14) |
2.4 (0.08) |
|
3. Soil and Crop Management |
2.0 (0.15) |
2.5 (0.17) |
2.2 (0.15) |
2.2 (0.09) | |
|
|
3.1 Soil Fertility and Management |
2.0 (0.11) |
2.1 (0.13) |
2.1 (0.13) |
2.1 (0.07) |
|
|
3.2 Mgmt of Soil Physical/Chemical Properties |
2.3 (0.15) |
2.6 (0.20) |
2.4 (0.18) |
2.4 (0.10) |
|
|
3.3 Rice Crop Management |
2.0 (0.14) |
2.2 (0.19) |
2.2 (0.13) |
2.1 (0.09) |
|
|
3.4 Cropping Systems |
2.1 (0.14) |
2.1 (0.15) |
2.1 (0.12) |
2.1 (0.08) |
|
4. Water Management |
2.7 (0.15) |
3.0 (0.17) |
2.6 (0.17) |
2.8 (0.09) | |
|
5. Constraints on Rice Productivity |
2.4 (0.14) |
2.8 (0.19) |
2.4 (0.14) |
2.5 (0.09) | |
|
6. Impact of New Technology |
2.2 (0.15) |
2.6 (0.17) |
2.4 (0.13) |
2.4 (0.09) | |
|
7. Networks |
1.9 (0.16) |
2.2 (0.21) |
2.1 (0.19) |
2.1 (0.11) | |
|
|
7.1 IRTP/INGER |
1.2 (0.07) |
2.0 (0.18) |
1.5 (0.11) |
1.6 (0.08) |
|
|
7.2 INSURF |
2.2 (0.15) |
2.3 (0.18) |
2.3 (0.16) |
2.3 (0.09) |
|
|
7.3 ARFSN1/ |
2.3 (0.21) |
2.4 (0.21) |
2.5 (0.23) |
2.4 (0.12) |
|
8. Farm Machinery |
2.7 (0.15) |
2.8 (0.16) |
2.8 (0.14) |
2.8 (0.09) | |
|
MEAN |
2.1 (0.03) |
2.3 (0.04) |
2.2 (0.03) |
2.2 (0.02) | |
1/Values of ARFSN come from respondents in Asia only.
Note: Values in table are average scores over all respondents, with the standard error of the mean in ().
Table 2. Evaluation of Importance of IRRI's Activities, 1992-2001.
|
Programme Area |
Research |
Training |
Information |
Total | |
|
1. Genetic Resources Conservation & Dissemination |
1.9 (0.07) |
1.8 (0.12) |
1.6 (0.11) |
1.8 (0.06) | |
|
2. Germplasm Improvement |
1.9 (0.09) |
1.7 (0.13) |
1.6 (0.13) |
1.8 (0.06) | |
|
|
2.1 Yield Potential |
1.8 (0.07) |
1.8 (0.13) |
1.5 (0.09) |
1.7 (0.06) |
|
|
2.2 Biotic Stress Resistance |
1.8 (0.08) |
1.6 (0.11) |
1.4 (0.08) |
1.7 (0.06) |
|
|
2.3 Abiotic Stress Resistance |
2.0 (0.08) |
1.6 (0.11) |
1.4 (0.09) |
1.8 (0.06) |
|
|
2.4 Biotechnology Applications |
2.0 (0.07) |
1.4 (0.09) |
1.3 (0.08) |
1.8 (0.06) |
|
3. Sustainable Crop & Land Management |
2.1 (0.09) |
2.1 (0.15) |
1.7 (0.14) |
2.0 (0.07) | |
|
|
3.1 Crop Establishment |
2.1 (0.08) |
1.9 (0.12) |
1.5 (0.09) |
2.0 (0.06) |
|
|
3.2 Nutrient Management |
2.0 (0.07) |
1.8 (0.11) |
1.5 (0.09) |
1.9 (0.06) |
|
|
3.3 Problem soils management |
2.2 (0.08) |
1.8 (0.13) |
1.4 (0.09) |
2.0 (0.06) |
|
|
3.4 Water Management |
2.2 (0.08) |
1.9 (0.12) |
1.6 (0.10) |
2.1 (0.06) |
|
|
3.5 Tillage and Soil Physical Properties |
2.4 (0.08) |
2.2 (0.14) |
1.7 (0.13) |
2.2 (0.06) |
|
|
3.6 Harvest & Post-Harvest Technologies |
2.1 (0.07) |
1.8 (0.11) |
1.6 (0.12) |
1.9 (0.06) |
|
4. Crop Protection |
1.9 (0.08) |
1.7 (0.13) |
1.5 (0.12) |
1.8 (0.06) | |
|
|
4.1 IPM |
1.8 (0.07) |
1.5 (0.09) |
1.3 (0.09) |
1.7 (0.05) |
|
|
4.2 Biology & Ecology of Pests & Beneficial Org |
2.0 (0.07) |
1.7 (0.11) |
1.5 (0.09) |
1.9 (0.06) |
|
5. Constraints and Impact Analysis |
2.2 (0.08) |
2.0 (0.14) |
1.9 (0.13) |
2.1 (0.06) | |
|
6. Ecosystems Characterization |
2.3 (0.08) |
2.1 (0.14) |
1.9 (0.13) |
2.2 (0.06) | |
|
7. Systems Analysis & Modelling |
2.2 (0.07) |
1.7 (0.11) |
1.7 (0.12) |
2.0 (0.06) | |
|
Total |
2.0 (0.02) |
1.8 (0.03) |
1.6 (0.03) |
1.9 (0.01) | |
Note: Values in table are average scores over all respondents, with the standard error of the mean in ().
Table 3. Evaluation of Importance of IRRI's Research, by ecosystems, 1992-2001.
|
Programme Area |
Irrigated Rice |
Rainfed Lowland Rice |
Upland Rice |
Deepwater Tidal Wetland Rice | |
|
1. Genetic Resources Conservation & Dissemination |
1.5 (0.11) |
1.8 (0.14) |
1.9 (0.13) |
2.5 (0.19) | |
|
2. Germplasm Improvement |
1.4 (0.12) |
1.8 (0.17) |
1.9 (0.16) |
2.4 (0.21) | |
|
|
2.1 Yield Potential |
1.3 (0.09) |
1.7 (0.15) |
1.8 (0.14) |
2.4 (0.19) |
|
|
2.2 Biotic Stress Resistance |
1.3 (0.08) |
1.8 (0.16) |
1.9 (0.13) |
2.5 (0.18) |
|
|
2.3 Abiotic Stress Resistance |
1.9 (0.11) |
2.0 (0.17) |
1.8 (0.14) |
2.4 (0.18) |
|
|
2.4 Biotechnology Applications |
1.5 (0.10) |
2.0 (0.16) |
2.0 (0.13) |
2.5 (0.18) |
|
3. Sustainable Crop & Land Management |
1.8 (0.13) |
2.1 (0.18) |
2.1 (0.17) |
2.5 (0.21) | |
|
|
3.1 Crop Establishment |
1.8 (0.12) |
2.0 (0.16) |
2.1 (0.15) |
2.5 (0.19) |
|
|
3.2 Nutrient Management |
1.6 (0.09) |
1.9 (0.16) |
2.1 (0.14) |
2.6 (0.18) |
|
|
3.3 Problem soils management |
2.0 (0.13) |
2.1 (0.15) |
2.0 (0.17) |
2.7 (0.18) |
|
|
3.4 Water Management |
1.7 (0.11) |
2.1 (0.15) |
2.4 (0.17) |
2.9 (0.18) |
|
|
3.5 Tillage and Soil Physical Properties |
2.0 (0.12) |
2.2 (0.16) |
2.3 (0.16) |
3.0 (0.19) |
|
|
3.6 Harvest & Post-Harvest Technologies |
1.7 (0.11) |
2.0 (0.14) |
2.2 (0.14) |
2.4 (0.17) |
|
4. Crop Protection |
1.5 (0.11) |
1.9 (0.15) |
1.8 (0.15) |
2.5 (0.20) | |
|
|
4.1 IPM |
1.4 (0.09) |
1.8 (0.14) |
1.8 (0.14) |
2.4 (0.17) |
|
|
4.2 Biology & Ecology of Pests & Beneficial Org |
1.6 (0.11) |
1.9 (0.14) |
2.1 (0.14) |
2.6 (0.17) |
|
5. Constraints and Impact Analysis |
2.0 (0.14) |
2.2 (0.17) |
2.2 (0.16) |
2.6 (0.18) | |
|
6. Ecosystems Characterization |
2.2 (0.13) |
2.2 (0.16) |
2.1 (0.15) |
2.7 (0.19) | |
|
7. Systems Analysis & Modelling |
1.9 (0.12) |
2.2 (0.15) |
2.3 (0.14) |
2.6 (0.18) | |
|
Total |
1.7 (0.03) |
2.0 (0.04) |
2.0 (0.03) |
2.6 (0.04) | |
Note: Values in table are average scores over all respondents, with the standard error of the mean in ().
Table 4. Evaluation of Effectiveness of Collaboration, and of IRRI Strategy and 5-year Work Plan, 1992-2001.
|
|
Mean Score | ||
|
A. Collaborative Mechanisms |
| ||
|
|
1. Networks |
| |
|
|
|
1.1 ARFSN |
2.1 (0.25) |
|
|
|
1.2 INSURF |
1.6 (0.16) |
|
|
|
1.3 INGER |
1.2 (0.08) |
|
|
|
1.4 IPMN |
1.8 (0.18) |
|
|
2. Consortia |
| |
|
|
|
2.1 Upland Rice Research |
1.7 (0.24) |
|
|
|
2.2 Rainfed Lowland Rice Research |
1.4 (0.20) |
|
|
3. Country Projects |
| |
|
|
|
3.1 Institutional capacity enhancement |
2.0 (0.22) |
|
|
|
3.2 Human resource development |
2.0 (0.24) |
|
|
|
3.3 Strengthening research activities |
1.8 (0.16) |
|
|
|
3.4 Strategic and long-term planning |
2.3 (0.20) |
|
B. IRRI's strategy and 5-year workplan |
| ||
|
|
1. New Organization Structure and Operation |
2.2 (0.22) | |
|
|
2. Ecosystem-based Research Programme |
1.4 (0.12) | |
|
|
3. IRRI's Interactions with Respondent's organization |
2.2 (0.18) | |
Note: Values for item A are average scores over those respondents who have participated in the respective collaborative mechanism.
