It appears that different people who have commented on the reviews are referring to different notions of consistency.
1. Consistency of quality. This is in part what Mr. Serageldin is referring to. Significant progress has been made on this front in recent reviews (e.g., ICRISAT. ISNAR, CIMMYT, IFPRI, IRRI) through stress for tighter arguments, more extensive search for chairs and members, and more analytic reports. In the final analysis, a review by a panel depends heavily on the quality of the judgment of the panel members and of the analysis that is presented.2. Consistency of reports. CGIAR reviews assess a center's performance in terms of four main criteria: (1) its impact; (2) the soundness of its program strategy: (3) the quality of the science that is practiced; and (4) the efficiency of resource use. The panels are asked to conduct a comprehensive review covering all four areas. While their diagnosis and analysis are expected to be comprehensive, their reporting need not cover all aspects of the center's activities in equal depth. However, panels often choose to err on the side of providing more rather than less information - in an effort to demonstrate the extensive nature of their inquiry.
The challenge for the organizers of the reviews is to generate short, pithy reports, written in direct language, and focused on the most critical aspects of a center's performance, without giving the impression that the panel has done only a partial job in examining the center. As a small step, a summary sheet could be placed in front of each review report to pull together the findings and recommendations in a standard format. This may help illustrate consistency and uniformity across reviews.
