(70) Starting a new research project in the FRI organization can not be an individual matter. Projects have to fit in the overall programme of the Institute, that in turn is based upon national development plans. Furthermore, projects have financial consequences and should therefore be considered in the framework of the total FRI budget. And, last but not least, projects have to be co-ordinated with other (ongoing and projected) projects in FRI and elsewhere, to prevent inefficient use of resources and to increase the usefulness of the results.
In FRI new projects will be started up on the basis of a project identification (by any agency) and according to the following schedule:
| - researcher | - discusses ideas/identified problems with teamleader/research guider; - drafts Research Project Proforma (RPP: Annex B); - discusses draft with teamleader/research guider; - prepares final RPP; - delivers RPP to Station Management (CSO). |
| - CSO | - reviews RPP towards Station's plans; - sends commented RPP to Headquarters (director). |
| - director | - sends copy of RPP to Programme Division for review towards FRI's and national plans (a); - sends copy of RPP to Co-ordination Division for advice on co-operation (b); - sends copy of RPP to Support Services Wing for advice on budgetary and technical requirements (c); - approves RPP on the basis of (a), (b), and (c); - sends approved RPP to CSO and researcher with budget allocations and co-operation advice. |
| - CSO | - includes project in working plan of Station; - appoints teamleader. |
| - researcher | - starts research along approved lines; - reports on results. |
(71) Scientific work in FRI is subject to reporting for three reasons:
(72) All activities carried out in or by FRI are sanctioned by the Board of Governors through approval of Annual Reports. The Annual Report describes results and achievements of the past year, together with policy strategies and research plans for the next year. In preparation of the Annual Report all scientists (as well as other senior staff) do have to play a certain role; they put forward the parts and pieces of the Annual Report according to a fixed reporting schedule. Based on an Annual Report submission date of July 1 of each year, the schedule is as follows:
| FEB | MAR | APR | MAY | JUN | |
| - Yearly Project Report (researcher) (73) | x-------------x | ||||
| - Yearly Programme Summary (teamleader) (74) | x-----------x | ||||
| - Yearly Station Report (CSO) (75) | x----------------x | ||||
| - Annual Report (director) (76) | x-----------------------x | ||||
(73) The individual researchers in the FRI Stations (incl. teamleaders) will prepare an extensive Yearly Project Report:
| contents: | - description of research and production (and training)
outcomes in the past year (in the form of a
manuscript for publication); -description of achievements in other tasks mentioned in the individual job descriptions; -plans for next year (or reference to a new RPP); -needed budget for next year (incl. estimated income). |
| procedure: | - preparation and delivery of draft Report between
February 15 and March 1; - discussion on draft with teamleader and research guider before March 15; - delivery of final Report to CSO before April 1 (copies to research guider, teamleader, researcher). |
(74) The teamleaders are, next to their own Yearly Project Reports, responsible for a Yearly Programme Summary, in which they highlight the main results of all projects in their programme for the use of the FRI Annual Report:
| contents: | - summary of main research results reached in the
individual projects of the programme, their relation
to each other and to results reached elsewhere; - summary of the research plans for the next year. (These summaries are to be included in the FRI Annual Report). |
| procedure: | - preparation and delivery of draft summaries in the
first week of April; - discussion on draft with research guider(s) before April 15; - delivery of final Summary to director FRI before May 1 (copies to CSO, research guider, researchers). |
(75) The CSO of each Station will prepare a Yearly Station Report, that has to serve as the main building stone for FRI's Annual Report:
Report:
| contents: | - review of research outcomes against expectations; - description of organizational highlights, visitors, personnel situation, publications tours); - description of the status of the facilities; - description of the major problems/needs and the ways they are solved or can be dealt with; - financial report over the past year and estimated expenditures and income in the next year; - summary of organizational and management plans. |
| procedure: | - preparation of draft report between March 15 and
April 15; - discussion on draft in a meeting with all teamleaders and research guiders; - delivery of the final Report to director FRI before May 1 (copies to all CSO's and own teamleaders and research guiders); - the Report should be based on fixed headings for paragraphs and tables, to be prescribed by the director FRI before March 15. |
(76) The director FRI will prepare the Annual Report itself, that will present in a short and clear manner all facts, progress, and plans of the Institute as a whole:
| contents: | - review of the achievements of FRI against national
plans; - description of activities of the Headquarters; - (combination of) Yearly Station Reports; - list of yearly Programme Summaries; - summary of plans for the next year. |
| procedure: | - preparation of guidelines for CSO's before March 15; - preparation of draft Annual Report in May; - discussion in, and approval by the Board of Governors before June 15; - finalization and delivery to printer before July 1. |
(78) For the transfer of research results to the primary users (extension service, policy makers, and others) written and oral reporting will be required, but fixed prescriptions are difficult to provide here. A few proposals (to be worked out in 1986/87) are:
(78) To inform the national and international scientific community on research results achieved at FRI, publications will be written for professional periodicals or proceedings of conferences. When researchers write their Yearly Project Reports as much as possible in the form of manuscripts this does not only present a good exercise, but it saves also time. When their results are suited for publication (to be decided during the discussion with their research guider) they will send a copy of the manuscript to the Headquarters of FRI, mentioning the preferred journal for publication. The manuscript will be subject to a review process, that is presently developed by the Training Specialist. In principle the Headquarters will send the manuscript back to the author within a set time-span, mentioning that:
(79) Evaluation of research projects involves two different steps:
To carry out regular evaluation of a large number of projects is a too extensive job for the management of a Station, especially since it will be involved in many other activities. But if regular evaluation is not carried out frequently enough, many of the projects will show the tendency of divergence from the original objectives, and they will tend to become less practice-oriented.
To make regular evaluation possible without burdening the management too heavy, related projects have been grouped (into programmes: see Annex A), so that they can be monitored together.
This grouping of projects has additional advantages:
Research programmes (= groups of related projects, that, in principle, are carried out by one researcher each) are supervised by a teamleader. This teamleader will generally be the seniormost researcher in the group. The teamleader has his own research project, but additionally he plays a role in the monitoring of the projects of his colleagues.
(80) For the regular monitoring of projects the system of Monthly Progress Reports is used, to be prepared by the individual researchers:
| - contents: | - short description of research outcomes in the ended
month (preferably in a table); - short description of planned activities for the next month; - listing of problems that ask for involvement of FRI-or Station-management. |
| - procedure: | - preparation of draft on last working-day of each
month; - discussion on draft with teamleader (and research guider) and colleagues in a “programme meeting” on the first working-day of each month; - delivery of final Report to teamleader before the 5th of each month (copy to CSO and research guider); - the Report should not exceed 1 page; a special proforma is available (see Annex D). |
During the “programme meeting” mentioned above results and plans of the individual researchers (projects) will be projected towards their original objectives, and towards the results reached in related projects. These projections will be carried out as far as possible in a group-discussion; the evaluating conclusion will be added to the Monthly Progress Report by the teamleader (see Annex D).
The teamleader sends copies of the Monthly Progress Reports of all projects in his programme in one time to the CSO and he briefs the CSO on the problems listed and the quality of the progress. The CSO will have these briefing meetings with the teamleaders before the 15th of each month; needed management actions will be taken as soon as possible after the meeting, but anyway before the end of the month. The regular monitoring schedule is thus as follows:
 | ||
| - preparation draft Monthly Progress Report | ||
| - programme meeting | ||
| - delivery final Report to teamleader | ||
| - briefing meeting teamleader with CSO | ||
| - actions | ||
(81) At the end of every year the individual researchers prepare their Yearly Progress Reports (73), that are far more elaborate than the Monthly Progress Reports, and that include working plans for the complete following year.
At this stage a more intensive evaluation has to be carried out, not only focussing on the merits of the project so far, but especially comparing the outcomes of each project with the needs of the country, and with potential outcomes of projects that are on the “waiting list”. This kind of end evaluation should be implemented by the Programme Division of the Headquarters, chaired by the director, and possibly with an involvement of all CSO's.
Procedures for the end evaluation, that is not only based on pure technical considerations only, but also on GOB and Institute policy, will be worked out in the course of 1987.
