The CGIAR's external review model is not perfect, but over the years it has served as a useful accountability mechanism that has satisfied most stakeholders' needs for performance information. Moreover, it has improved over time. Non-CGIAR international centers have modeled their review systems around the CGIAR's, and in fact adopted the CGIAR terms of reference and guidelines for their own reviews.
But, as pressures on the centers and the System for demonstration of their impact and efficiency increase, the review process will be expected to respond to these demands. This means refinement of the review effort at reasonable intervals to bring greater depth, precision and objectivity to the judgments made by the panels. Feedback from the users of the reviews (in the first instance, the CGIAR, its members and centers) is needed to guide such refinements.
A number of refinements were suggested above to help address the recent criticisms of the review process. We welcome reactions to them. The suggestions include the following:
1. Asking the review panels to assess the adequacy of a center's existing quality control mechanisms, including the schedule of planned center-commissioned reviews, and make recommendations for improving them. This could be used as a planning tool by the center and serve as a checklist by the subsequent CGIAR review panel.2. Preparing draft criteria and standards for assessing the adequacy of the CCERs for the purposes of EPMRs. These could be based on what past EPMR panels have found to be 'high value' CCERs and should prepared in cooperation with the centers.
3. Encouraging the centers to expand their impact assessment efforts. As logframe analyses are used more widely by the centers in project planning and monitoring, the panel's analysis of the center's impact can be based more on information about outputs and achievement of milestones.
4. Conducting the future EPMRs through panels that range from about three to eight members (and with a correspondingly small or large overall review effort) depending on the availability, coverage, and adequacy of CCERs.
5. Continuing to move the review system towards generating short, pithy reports, written in direct language, and which focus 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. A standard summary sheet could be placed in front of each review report that pulls out the key findings and illustrates consistency and uniformity in the CGIAR's overall review effort.
6. Briefing of the CGIAR Chair by the Chair of each review about the panel's findings and recommendations (including recommendations on the review process).
7. Debriefing panel chairs as they attend TAC meetings to present the review report (as is done now), with a special emphasis on process aspects of the review, including the involvement and contributions of secretariat staff.
8. Comparing the costs of CGIAR reviews with costs incurred by selected reputable research and/or development institutions.
