Learning from Phase I: A Survey of Project Leaders and Staff | Land Portal

Resource information

Date of publication: 
December 2010
Resource Language: 
ISBN / Resource ID: 
handle:10568/5399
License of the resource: 

IN response to an on-line survey, 76 project leaders and staff gave CPWF Phase 1 a

generally favorable review. Respondents came from 68 CPWF projects in 45 countries on

three continents. The survey sought to help learn what went well in Phase 1, what did not

go so well and can be improved in Phase 2.

Nearly three-quarters of respondents felt that they had achieved different research results,

outcomes and impacts as a result of participation in the CPWF than otherwise possible from

‘business as usual’ research approaches. Most (84%) agreed that they had worked with

more and different partners in the CPWF. Three-quarters agreed that this had contributed

to different science and outcomes. Most respondents (80%) also valued the platform the

CPWF provides for communicating project results. In areas to be improved, nearly half

pointed to shortcomings in the scientific support provided to projects, in part due to lack of

resources available to enable theme leaders to follow-up on project activities.

Most respondents were generally happy with the way the CPWF Secretariat (60%) and

CGIAR Lead Centres (70%) had managed their projects. One quarter felt that CPWF

technical reporting requirements had not been useful. Respondents expressed frustration

that reporting formats changed during the course of the project, but more so that they were

not conceived as a cumulative process. There were expectations that periodic technical

reports would have been structured to be amalgamated into the final report at the end of

the project, yet this was not so. Respondents also commented on lack of feedback by CPWF

(Secretariat, Theme Leaders & Basin Coordinators) to project leaders after report

submission. Bi-annual reporting, as opposed to quarterly reporting, was suggested as more

appropriate.

Respondents were happier with financial reporting requirements and two thirds felt that

financial disbursements had been timely. Several comments indicated problems early on

that were resolved by the CPWF and partners. One recurring theme was the different

accounting systems of various partners, which created delays in compiling and submitting

reports in the required CPWF format.

Given the emphasis put on capacity building during Phase I, the survey assessed

respondent’s perceptions of the investment. Over 75% of respondents agreed that the

CPWF provided valuable capacity building. A large majority (85%) agreed that student

researchers were helpful and productive and comments were generally very positive on the

role of student researchers. One respondent suggested student researchers had contributed

more to project outputs than some of the professional researchers. However comments

were also made about the time, money, and energy required to adequately supervise and

monitor students to ensure their contributions to project teams and outputs.

Authors and Publishers

Author(s), editor(s), contributor(s): 

Sullivan, A.
Alvarez, Sophie

Publisher(s): 

CGIAR (CGIAR)

CGIAR is the only worldwide partnership addressing agricultural research for development, whose work contributes to the global effort to tackle poverty, hunger and major nutrition imbalances, and environmental degradation.


Data provider

CGIAR (CGIAR)

CGIAR is the only worldwide partnership addressing agricultural research for development, whose work contributes to the global effort to tackle poverty, hunger and major nutrition imbalances, and environmental degradation.


Share this page