| 1.
Participation: Functional involvement of stakeholders and collective project management |
Indicators |
Positive aspects |
Negative
aspects |
Unknown
aspects |
| Number and type of stakeholders involved |
- Active stakeholder participation approach
- Synergy is attractive
- Lead partners in the project are open
- Those directly affected by the project have a say
- Those in support, coming from outside the project, can back up
- Researchers learn more about local knowledge
- Government likes to gets closer to people
- Group and community get benefits from “learning by doing”
|
- Disturbing government management priorities
- Farmers loose time in the field
- Researchers don’t get proper resources
- A stakeholder joins with destructive intentions
- A stakeholder comes with preconceived ideas
|
The motive of the stakeholders to join |
| Actual role of stakeholders in project implementation |
- People see that consensus building makes sense
- Focus
- Efficiency in management
- Conflict of interests
- Active involvement
- Responsibility
- Interaction
- Addressing c b
- Spin-offs
|
- Conflict of interests
- Limited capacity without capacity building
|
A stakeholder may have several loyalties |
| Project governance structure |
- Mutual understanding of issues
- Networking
- Support if given from government departments Governance structure gives legitimacy
- Legitimacy and influence in terms of government policy change
- Recognition by the university
|
- A project structure may conflict with host structures (focus, time, activity level, mandate)
|
- The reaction in other structures
The chemistry between governance proponents (leadership) |
| |
|
|
|
| 2.
Knowledge management:
Sharing, learning and exchange |
Indicators |
Positive aspects |
Negative
aspects |
Unknown
aspects |
| Frequency of inter-stakeholder interaction (email, telephone, face-to-face meetings) |
- A lot of face-to-face meetings with the farmers
- Work as friends with the farmers
- Interaction encouraging for up-taking of credit, education, training
- On the part of the scientist the face-to-face interaction increasing through increased interaction for better solutions
|
- High costs and long distance discourages face-to-face interaction
- Differences in socio-cultural and environment circumstances
|
|
| Implementation arrangements modified/improved as a result of lessons learned from inter-stakeholder interactions identified above |
- To address the real needs of farmers
- To enhance efficiency and delivery of project outputs
- Stakeholder approach opened the opportunities for stakeholders to identify and express views
- Farmers get basic knowledge on their production environment before seeking markets
|
- Danger of top-down approach
- Loss of time because of loss of time
|
Any new intervention bring uncertainty |
| Creation of an active network (e.g. local organizations, group of researchers, organizations) involved in the project |
- Access very attractive for the active stakeholder
- Committed farmers move on with the project; quick gains not forthcoming means a sorting principle of likeminded farmers
- Applies also to researchers
- Research networking useful for knowledge exchange
- Testing ideas and getting feedback
- Opportunities to open new markets
- With a network connection the individual becomes assertive (for example giving the farmer a voice; example camel herders forgotten to coffee support, or bee producers to tea production)
|
- An active network can become exclusive
- Relations between researchers and government can become tense
- Friend-enemy principle applies
|
- Passiveness in network building
|
| |
|
|
|
| 3.
Capacity building:
Improving research and research management capacity |
Indicators |
Positive aspects |
Negative
aspects |
Unknown
aspects |
| New skills obtained/improved due to the project |
- Traditional techniques questioned, and new skills anticipated to give added values
|
- A limited understanding by researchers leads to replace tested traditional techniques
- The farmers may worry to apply new skills for the scare of failure
- High costs of new technology prohibiting
- The POPSe budget is too low for up/scaling, meaning disconnecting with development
- POPSe time is too short for proper monitoring
- Long-term environmental cycles can not be monitored under the project period
|
- |
| Research / innovation / technology uptake |
Process open for initiative from pace-setters / groups
The project can have a catalyst effect so that existing knowledge becomes activated
Pace-setters grow in the POPSe project; they take own initiative based their needs |
/As above/
If research finding has to be transformed into production in a top-bottom fashion there is a risk of long-term negative effects |
- |
| Improvements in research infrastructure |
Demand-driven research style
Synergy in pooling of resources brings effective management |
Limited financial source |
- |
| |
|
|
|
| 4.
Institutionalization: Mainstreaming innovative partnership arrangements |
Indicators |
Positive aspects |
Negative
aspects |
Unknown
aspects |
| Counter-parting (funds, skills, time, information) |
Interest and motivation of the research team / partners, so that they are willing to contribute and share experience free of charge
Facilities for research already available |
Part-time attention; other work and need to keep several activities going hampers involvement |
-
|
| Project activities integrated in regular activities of the organizations involved in the project |
Effective use of resources
Opportunity to harmonize development initiatives
If project is within government initiative this enhances its performance of government projects towards the role-out of development |
Project looses identity and becomes co-opted by government or other initiatives |
- |
| Change in policies of institutions involved (e.g. encouraging participatory research, involvement of civil society organizations in R&D process, etc.) |
Policies do not change easily but the project can lead to policy discussion by bringing about new knowledge
Change of government and donor human resource may enhance a project’s prioritization and performance
Evaluation may bring in new insights |
No communication for change is possible if interaction between project and government is lacking
Government and donor human resource changes may alter a project’s perspectives and priorities
External evaluation may hinder a project’s development |
- |
| Spin-offs (i.e. other initiatives developed directly or indirectly from DURAS project) |
Spread of project impact
Inspire government to take the direction of the project initiative as theirs (hijacking)
Harmony between development agents can pick up spin-offs and push the project to a higher level |
Bad elements in the project can have long-time effects
Short-lived projects attracts social resources from the community in vain
Lost spin-offs mean re-inventions and loss of resources |
- |
| |
|
|
|