Working Paper on Institutionalisation of a Harmonised Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation System in KARI
AN Mbabu and JO Mugah
KARI Working Paper Series Working Paper No. 1, 1998
In recent years, KARI has hosted several workshops on monitoring and evaluation. In October 1993, a workshop was held to raise awareness on the concepts of Monitoring and Evaluation (M & E in KARI.
A follow-up workshop was held in November 1994 with two objectives:
The workshop focused specifically at the project level, although the process is also relevant at the programme and institute levels.
This cumulative effect laid the foundation for the formation of a task force consisting of representatives from the KARI management, Centre Directors, scientists and donors, to assist in the full institutionalisation of PM & E in KARI. The attached working paper is the product of a series of meetings by the Task Force, and incorporates comments from major stakeholders. The paper lays down a strategy and the workplan for institutionalisation of PM & E in KARI. It is my pleasure to invite concerned parties to support the implementation of this document. It is my belief that KARI needs an effective system, such as the one proposed here, to streamline its management system for more effective and efficient generation and delivery of appropriate technologies to target clients.
CG Ndiritu (EBS, PhD
WORKING PAPER FOR INSTITUTIONALISATION OF A HARMONISED PLANNING, MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEM IN KARI
8. In considering a PM & E system for KARI, three layers of management have been identified, namely:
a. Institutional, at the level of the Strategic and Corporate Plans.
b. Research Programmes, medium- to long-term delivery of Strategic and Corporate Plan outputs.
c. Projects, medium to short-term collections of related experiments and studies.
9. At the institute level KARI's current strategy emphasises client-oriented research. This is an important development on the traditional emphasis of strategic research thrusts. KARI's Purpose and Goal [mission], at this level, link to broader government aims and policy statements.
10. Within KARI's divisions, research programmes are designed to delivery the outputs which contribute to the overall institutional purpose and goal [mission].
11 Within each of the programmes, there are many projects. These consist of experiments and studies, and may cut across technical divisions.
12. KARI's four support divisions [Human Resources, Finance, Supplies and Estate Management] also utilise resources and contribute to the institutional mission.
13. To plan, monitor and evaluate the activities and outputs at these different levels requires a system that logically links them together, ensuring that each reflects the outputs, purposes and goals of the next.
14. One way to structure this is through the use of a logical framework. It
is the logical framework, or logframe, which is used as a basis for the hierarchical
structure in figure 1.
15. Managerial responsibility at each of the three levels is different, and is currently under review. Responsibilities as they now stand, are described in general terms below [16-21].
16. A directorate comprising the Director, Deputy Directors, Assistant Directors and Centre Directors takes responsibility for the Institute and operates under the general guidance of the Board of Management. Centre Directors represent the Directorate at research centres.
17. At a more specific level, Assistant Directors take charge of the technical
programmes normally based at research centres, through Centre Directors.
18. Programme Co-ordinators have direct responsibility for specific research programmes, and report to the Directorate.
19. Project Leaders supervise the operations of scientific activities and report to their Centre Directors and Programme Co-ordinators.
20. Scientists implement specific research activities with the help of technical, administrative and support staff, and report to project leaders.
21. At all these management levels there are specific responsibilities which need to be standardised, institutionalised and logically linked both vertically and horizontally. The current structures and processes are summarised in Annex 1.
22. The mechanism for implementing this plan is shown in Annex 2, in logical
framework format. The framework proposes four groups of Activities which, if
implemented sequentially, will deliver the Outputs that the Task Force considers
necessary and sufficient to institutionalise planning, monitoring and evaluation
23. The step-wise series of activities will allow discrete funding of this
process. The total estimated budget to implement this proposal is #67,000 [Ksh7.6
million]. This figure is very appropriate and will vary according to the level
and number of staff involved.
ANNEX 1: OUTLINE OF CURRENT SYSTEMS
A1. This Annex outlines the institutional procedures currently in place, and some of the Task Force's ideas for incorporation into a standardised system of PM & E for KARI. Procedures may only be nominally in place and implementation is often ad hoc and of variable quality. The intention of the proposal is to standardise and institutionalise a range of simple, yet effective planning, monitoring and evaluation tools and processes.
The Institute Level
A2. At the Institute level, the focus is on the total system and its place in the agricultural sector and the politico-economy.
A3. Planning, monitoring and evaluation functions are based on the dual role of delivering the declared institutional outputs and interacting with external factors to interpret and to influence the wider sectoral and politico economic expectations.
A4. Key to this broader view is the development of a Strategic Plan, which is long-term and reflects government policy statements across the agricultural and other sectors.
A5. The implementation of the Strategic Plan will rely on the revision of the corporate [medium-term] Plan which reflects the activities necessary to delivery outputs defined in it.
A6. To ensure that programmes reflect the Strategic purpose and goal of the Institute, priority setting among programmes will be done every 5 years. This process should challenge each division [AD] to demonstrate its commitment towards the Institute's mission and to articulate the expected gains to be made by investing in the respective programmes.
The Programme Level
A7. Several events typically represent planning, monitoring and evaluation at the programme level; these are:
A8. Strategic planning at the progamme level aims to align programme goals to the Institute's purpose. This will be done every 5 years under the leadership of the appropriate Assistant and Centre Directors and Programme co-ordinators.
A9. Priority setting within programmes will be done within the context of the programme's strategic plan. The purpose of this will be to identify, with reference to all stakeholders, the most promising research thrusts towards resolving the constraints facing them.
A10. Priority setting within programmes will be done every 3 years. This process will be done under the guidance of Programme Co-ordinators.
A11. Annual review and planning meetings, under the leadership of the respective Assistant Directors, Programme co-ordinators and donor representatives, are intended to take stock of on-going activities and plan for the following year's activities.
A12. At mid-term evaluation, programmes will be assessed for progress made towards achievement of purpose through the delivery of expected outputs. Constraints and solutions will be identified.
A13. End-term reviews will be carried out after completion of the programmes. The main purpose of these reviews will be to ascertain the extent to which completed outputs have contributed towards the purpose and goal of the programmes.
The Project Level
A14. Planning, monitoring and evaluation events at the project level are more frequent [annual or biannual] and are more detailed because of the nature of the activities. At this level, scientific knowledge and client needs are blended.
A15. The PM & E process t this level may be seen as events ensuring that research activities link up with the programme outputs and purpose.
A16. All research activities need to identify client needs. This will be done by rigorous constraint analysis and problem definition under the guidance of Project Leaders. Tools such as participatory and rapid rural appraisals and information systems will be used.
A17. Once the project justification is sufficiently formulated, it will be presented to the Centre Proposal Preparation Committee [CPPC/Pre-CRAC] headed by the Centre Director and will include all the scientists in the centre. The Committee will review progress of on-going activities and all the new proposals and identify those to be submitted to the Centre Research Advisory Committee [CRAC].
A18. The CRAC consists of farmer representatives, extension representatives [governmental and non-governmental], agro-industrialists and other stakeholders. The Centre Director will convene this committee under the chairmanship for the Provincial Director of Agriculture; the Centre Director will also provide the secretariat.
A19. The purpose of this committee will be to ensure that each of the new research proposals addresses issues of relevance to the clients and complies with agreed resource allocation resulting from the priority setting process.
A20. Once research proposals meet the test of relevance, they will further be developed to meet the rigorous of good science. The proposals will then be presented before Scientific Committees [SCs], which may comprise representatives from the universities, international research organisations, the donor community, and governmental and non-governmental organisations. The committee will be convened by the appropriate Assistant Director.
A21. Once the proposals meet the criteria of relevance and scientific rigour, they will then be submitted to the Research Co-ordination Committee [RCC] for resource allocation. The RCC will be convened by the Deputy Director[s] and attended by all the Assistant Directors. It is here that proposed projects will be rationalised in view of available resources. The proposals that are recommended for funding by this committee will then be submitted for approval by the KARI Board of Management.
A22. The Board of Management will evaluate the merit of the proposed research portfolio and the corresponding budgetary implications. If they agree that the proposed research agenda conforms to the Institute's mission and are satisfied that resources are available, then they will approve the workplan and budget for implementation.
A23. After approval of workplans and budgets by the Board, resources will be allocated by Centre Directors according to workplans.
ANNEX 2: PLANNING, MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Logical Framework to implement institutionalised PM & E in KARI [9 July, 1998].
A24. During implementation, the reporting will be quarterly and annual. Quarterly reports will include progress at activity to output level, constraints, proposed solutions for constraints, workplans and budgets for the following quarter. Annual reports will dwell on expected outputs and research highlights.
A25. Monitoring will normally be biannual by Programme Leaders.
May 13, 1998.
Annex 3: MEMBERS OF THE PM & E TASKFORCE
Dr. A.N. Mbabu, AD, Socio-economics
Mr. J. Sutherland, KARI/DFID
Secretariat, PM & E Unit
Mrs. M. Chemweno - KARI HQ