The CGIAR uses a panel approach for periodic assessment of the performance of each center. Panels are carefully selected to cover major activities within the center and conduct an independent evaluation based on a thorough review of available evidence. The Secretariats, in cooperation with the center being evaluated, make an effort to bring before the panel the most objective set of indicators reflecting the performance of the center. The judgment by the panel is based on the prevailing view of the panel members after they have examined all the evidence.
There is no clear alternative to this approach of an independent, external review of a center's performance. Peer reviews are widely regarded as a preferred evaluation method for research institutions. Having a CGIAR commissioned review eliminates the need for each CGIAR member contributing to that center to carry out its own separate evaluation. In rare cases when such an evaluation is commissioned, the review model preferred is also a panel approach.
Thus, until a better alternative is discovered, the panel approach remains the most appropriate for assessing research institutions. The issue is, therefore, not one of appropriateness, but of making the most of the panel approach - i.e., generating the most useful information on the center's performance for the benefit of the institution's stakeholders (including its board and management).
Over the years, the efforts to improve the CGIAR's review process have focused primarily on: (1) selecting the best people for the panels; (2) asking the panels to address what the stakeholders consider to be the most significant questions on performance; and (3) providing the panels with the most up-to-date information on these questions. Significant advances have been made on each of these fronts through:
· wider and more targeted searches for panel members;
· reducing time demands on panel members and the center staff;
· increasing the CGIAR review's reliance on center-commissioned external reviews;
· clarifying the evaluation criteria and simplifying the terms-of-reference; and.
· preparing background materials targeted to the evaluation criteria (mostly by the centers).
