| 1.
Participation |
Indicators |
Positive aspects |
Negative
aspects |
Unknown
aspects |
| Number and type of stakeholders involved |
Multidisciplinary
Nature of project required it
Enhances understanding of how to improve coordination of various actors in pig value chain
Facilitates farmers access to public services (eg animal health)
Strengthen linkages among stakeholders
Expands influence of project to more beneficiaries |
Requires more money, time effort
Risk of losing focus if not properly coordinated
Risk of losing independence to implement agreed project design
Location
Different levels of research focus |
|
| Role of stakeholders in implementation |
Nature of project required it
Interest |
Constraints in funds and time |
|
|
Project governance |
|
 |
|
| |
|
|
|
| 2.
Knowledge management |
Indicators |
Positive aspects |
Negative
aspects |
Unknown
aspects |
| Frequency of inter-stakeholder interaction |
Demand from stakeholders
Necessary for finding quick solutions to problems
Necessary to achieve project deliverables |
Location limits cross team interaction |
|
| Implementation arrangement modified as a result of lessons learned |
To address requirements of individual stakeholders
Different levels of issues being addressed in project sites |
 |
|
| Creation of active network |
Strong interest from farmers to get higher incomes and new skills
Institutional support
Right timing
Previous work
Supportive legal framework |
|
New initiative
Dynamic environment |
| |
|
|
|
| 3.
Capacity building |
Indicators |
Positive aspects |
Negative
aspects |
Unknown
aspects |
| New skills obtained/improved due to project |
-relevant training
-institutional support
-favourable market conditions
-good training facilitators
-appropriate and effective training methodologies
-farmer interest
-opportunity to learn new skills, apply research approaches (specifically among research team members). |
|
|
| Research innovation / technology uptake |
-demand from farmers
-institutional support
-existence of local organisation as conduits |
|
|
| Improvement in research infrastructure |
-farmers problem solved |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| 4.
Institutionalisation |
Indicators |
Positive aspects |
Negative
aspects |
Unknown
aspects |
| Counterparting |
Institutional support
Demand driven
Share skills and resources |
Limited funding/skills |
|
| Integration of project activities in other related organisations |
Institutional support
Relevant activities |
Donor demand
Limited time |
|
| Changes on policies of institutions involved |
Consultation of commune councils in helping negotiate price
Impact of project
Strong consumer demand for good quality meat |
|
|
| Spin-offs |
Effective implementation scaled up others
Strong interaction of farmers who are involved and not involved. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|