(21) Internal monitoring is considered an essential tool for effective institute management.
Internal monitoring is generally directed (on the one hand) towards the state and flow of finances, manpower and facilities, and (on the other hand) towards product quality. In the case of a research institute the “product” is the output from research efforts. Especially regular monitoring of this output is a neccesity, since researchers all over the world show the tendency to divert from their original objectives as soon as they become obseded by details. In applied research, as is envisaged by FRI, details have mostly to be left (or passed on to university researchers), so that the work does not become less practice-oriented. It is one of the tasks of an internal monitoring system to evaluate the efficiency of researchers in producing results which solve identified problems and which can be adopted in the environment of Bangladesh.
(22) Monitoring of the financial and manpower progress of research has to be carried out project-wise, since those inputs are normally allotted project-wise.
Monitoring of the research output of a project, however, will often have to be seen in the context of the needs and/or outputs of other projects: results of a certain investigation will sometimes be needed to make practical work in other research projects possible. An example can be found in nutritional research: a project that aims at analysis of available ingredients for fish feed has no direct practical value for the country's fish producers, but yet such research produces data that are indispensable for interpretation of results of the (very practical) testing and manufacturing of diets. Another example is the study of the ecology of large waterbodies: its observations are an indispensable input for optimal stocking management of those waters, and thus of production.
(23) Related research projects of FRI have been grouped into research programmes and monitoring of outputs of complete programmes can be carried out, which will save considerable time. The identified programmes with their projects are presented in the Research Masterplan (TA-report No 10 in this series).
This grouping of projects has additional advantages:
The monitoring of the financial progress, as stated before, has to be carried out project-wise, but even use of manpower and facilities could be evaluated for various projects (per programme) in a combined effort.
(24) A number of the research projects at FRI are funded through the Contract Research Scheme of the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council (BARC). BARC has developed its own monitoring system. It is essentially an internal monitoring system, implemented with external assistance. That system considers finances, manpower, and project methodologies and results. It does not consider economic justifications and priorities, once projects have started.
BARC's system of internal monitoring is complex. It is proposed to adopt an amended version of BARC's system for all FRI research, as BARC's system was designed to serve other (more) monitoring purposes than needed in an individual institute. For the sake of facilitation of the research monitoring at FRI, however, it is proposed in the present report to include the appropriate parts of the BARC system into the monitoring system recommended to FRI. This will enhance the monitoring of Contract Research projects.
(25) The responsibility for internal monitoring is with the central management of the Institute.
The tasks of the FRI management with respect to internal monitoring of progress reflects the objectives of any form of internal monitoring in a research institute, namely:
(26) Internal monitoring has to be carried out in a systematic manner, in order to assure cost-effective functioning of the institute. Because of the large numbers of research projects (90) and programmes (22) identified in the 1987 Research Masterplan, this regular monitoring would place a very heavy burden on FRI management. Therefore it is envisaged in the (approved) Masterplan, to appoint one senior researcher in each programme as “teamleader” or “programme leader”, and to delegate to him part of the responsibility for internal monitoring of the projects in his programme. This would mean a considerable saving of time for the CSO. If the use of such “teamleaders” is not acceptable under Bangladeshi rules, the CSO has to carry out the complete internal monitoring procedure. In that case, the word “teamleader” in this report has to be read as CSO".
The final responsibility for the conclusions from internal monitoring, as well as for translation of these conclusions into management actions, remains with the management itself: i.e. CSO's and ultimately the Director.
(27) Internal monitoring is a management tool that, if applied regularly and consequently, will assist the FRI management in:
(28) To make research management within an institute efficient, different procedures, phased in time, are used:
(29) Planning of research starts with a good description of the work to be carried out: objectives and justifications, the state of the art, and the proposed methodologies. Normally, the researcher(s) involved prepare this description; in the Research Masterplan of FRI a format was presented (“Research Project Proforma” (RPP): TA-Report No 10, Annex B, pages 120 – 126). This format is designed for projects under the core research programme of FRI. For projects to be financed under the Contract Research Scheme another format is available at BARC: the “Contract Research Proposal” (CRP).
Once the researcher has prepared the research part of the RPP or CRP, it will have to be reviewed by his teamleader/CSO and, therafter, by the FRI directorate, with the following possible outcomes:
The proposed project fits into the Research Masterplan, has a high starting priority, and the proposed methodologies seem to be adequate to tackle the identified problem area: START.
Same, but the objectives and/or methodologies need adjustment and/or adaptation: START AFTER REVISION.
The proposed project does not fit into the Masterplan, or it is not considered to have high priority, or the proposed set-up is not scientifically and/or practically adequate: REJECT.
(30) After the management has accepted a project, the researcher(s) concerned will have to add cost estimates to the RPP, for which headings are provided in the format. The cost estimates consider:
Elements that can be included in these cost estimates are listed in TA-report No 08 (Annex A, pages 118 –119) and partly in the RPP format itself.
For a CRP the budget headings are somewhat different from those in the RPP, but they can without difficulties be transferred from and to each other.
(31) When the estimates are completed, the RPP is again submitted to the higher institute authorities, who will determine whether the budgets are realistic and, if so, they will pass on the RPP to the Board of Governors for approval. From that moment onwards the project exists and for the researchers the planning phase is over and implementation starts. The FRI management, however, has to carry out two more planning activities, namely:
(32) A completed CRP will be sent to BARC by the Director FRI. It does not have to pass the Board again, since only those projects are endorsed for contract research funding which are specified in the Research Masterplan as integrally approved by the Board.
Subsequently, BARC will process the fund request in accordance with established procedures. BARC will not scrutinize the scientific contents (the research part) of the CRP any more; it could, however, advice co-operation and/or co-ordination with relevant other research elsewhere.
After sending the CRP to BARC, the FRI management has to carry out the same two planning activities as upon completion of an RPP:
(33) The project file as mentioned above is for the management of the institute the main outcome of the planning phase: it provides the foundation for monitoring of progress.
For easy handling and ready availability, the project files should be simple computer files, that can be entered and adapted through e.g. any word processing or spread sheet software programmes.
Project files can be designed in many different ways, dependent on the purposes they have to serve. In FRI these purposes are expected to include:
(34) A ready format for the project files needed in FRI does not exist. In Dhaka, World Bank and FAO are maintaining project files, but their purposes are different: they can not be copied for use in FRI. In FRI's Research Masterplan (TA-report No 10) Annex A presents one-page summaries of all research projects foreseen for the period 1986 – 1990. These summaries can be used as a starting point for project files. A proposed adaptation is presented in Table 2; this has, however, to be seen as a first draft that has to be adapted in design and contents during its use. A really efficient project file format, tailored to the needs of FRI, will automatically merge from the draft in the course of 1 – 2 years.
(35) The FRI management should designate one fulltime administrative assistant, conversant with electronic data file handling, to project filing. This employee will have to bring into the files any changes in project objectives, time schedules, budgets, and any outputs from the projects. He will do this on the basis of reports from the researchers, that reach him through the appropriate institute channels (see under 3.2.3). By doing so, the project files will always be updated, and the FRI management will at any time be able to request a print out of the project file of a certain project, for ready reference.
Table 2 - Example of a (preliminary) project file
| A | PROJECT DATA | |||
| A01 | PROJECT CODE | : | ||
| A02 | PROJECT TITLE | : | ||
| A03 | STATION OF EXECUTION | : | ||
| A04 | RESEARCH PROGRAMME | : | ||
| A05 | RESEARCHER | (1) | : | |
| (2) | : | |||
| A06 | TEAMLEADER | : | ||
| A07 | OTHER STAFF | : | ||
| A08 | RPP SIGNING DATA | : | ACTUAL STARTING DATE: | |
| A09 | CRP SIGNING DATE | : | ACTUAL STARTING DATE: | |
| A10 | ORIGINAL CLOSURE DATE | : | CURRENT CLOSURE DATE: | |
| B | REPORTING, | RECEIVED Y/N | ||||||||||||
| B01 | MONTHLY | 19.., | J | F | M | A | M | J | J | A | S | O | N | D |
| 19.., | J | F | M | A | M | J | J | A | S | O | N | D | ||
| B02 | QUARTERLY, | 19.., | I | II | III | IV | ||||||||
| 19.., | I | II | III | IV | ||||||||||
| B03 | ANNUAL | |||||||||||||
| B04 | REMARKS ON REPORTING ADEQUACY | |||||||||||||
| C | BUDGETS | |
| C01 | ORIGINAL BUDGETS | |
| 19.. Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 19.. 19.. TOTAL | ||
| (Specifications and items as mentioned under paragraph (30) of the present report, or according to the Contract Research formats, whichever is applicable) | ||
| C02 | ACTUAL DISBURSEMENTS | |
| 19.. | Q01: | |
| Q02: etc. | ||
| C03 | HISTORY OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN C01 AND C02 | |
| D | RESEARCH |
| D01 | OBJECTIVES, ORIGINAL: |
| D02 | WORKPLAN/TIME SCHEDULE, ORIGINAL: |
| D03 | METHODOLOGIES, ORIGINAL: |
| D04 | EXPECTED OUTPUTS, ORIGINAL: |
| D05 | OBJECTIVES, REVISED; REASONS FOR REVISION: |
| D06 | WORKPLAN/TIME SCHEDULE, REVISED; REASONS FOR REVISION: |
| D07 | METHODOLOGIES, REVISED; REASONS FOR REVISION: |
| D08 | EXPECTED OUTPUTS, REVISED; REASONS FOR REVISION: |
| E | PROBLEMS |
| E01 | PROBLEM 01: |
| (Identification, date; action required; action ordered, date; responsibility; elimination of problem, date) | |
| E02 | PROBLEM 02: etc. |
(36) The actual monitoring of progress is the second step in the internal monitoring system, after planning. In fact, it is the evaluation of performance in physical and financial terms: the actual performance is critically evaluated against the planned budgets, workplans, and time schedules. Succes or failure of projects (or programmes) is determined. This stage provides the basis for management decisions with relation to (dis) continuation of certain research activities and/or for corrective actions. It also provides the basis for further long-term planning.
(37) Internal monitoring must be a continuous process at various levels with different frequency. Research progress has to be monitored on a rather low (teamleader) level much more frequent than e.g. financial progress on the Directorate level. In the following paragraphs a monitoring schedule for FRI is proposed; a summary can be found in Table 3.
(38) Monitoring of research starts with institutionalized review or progress meetings of a teamleader with the research staff of his programme. Such meetings should be scheduled on a fixed moment, preferably bi-weekly. Very often research institutes schedule this type of meetings either at the beginning of the working week (e.g. on Saturday morning), or at the end (e.g. on Thursday afternoon).
The meetings should not last more than two hours. In each meeting one research project (or the work of one researcher) should be reviewed thoroughly during 1 – 1.5 hours, whereas the last half hour of the meeting is available for discussions on acute problems in other projects of the programme, as well as for general affairs, like announcements from the institute or station management.
The research discussion could best be held at the research site (if suitable): laboratory, hatchery, or field. There the researcher concerned summarizes the intentions of his work, his methodologies, and, if available, his results. His audience (the programme colleagues, the teamleader, and, from time to time, the CSO) will comment his work in the widest sense; the teamleader has to take care that the discussion favours the researcher concerned (positive criticism) and does not deviate from the subject.
The outcome from the bi-weekly research meetings will lead to:
Table 3 - Internal monitoring scheme for research at FRI
| TIME-SCHEDULE | PARTICIPANTS | PURPOSE | |||
| A. | BIWEEKLY, fixed, maximum 2 hours. | - | teamleader and researchers of related projects; CSO should attend the various meetings on a rotating scheme. | - | discussion on actual research work in lab and field, including critical reviews of methods and elaborations; |
| - | identification of problems. | ||||
| B. | MONTHLY, last day of month. | - | researcher(s). | - | production of Monthly Progress Report. |
| C. | MONTHLY, first week of month, 2 hours. | - | teamleaders and CSO. | - | short progress discussion; |
| - | identification of unsolved problems that have to be brought to the Directorate. | ||||
| D. | QUARTERLY, first 3 weeks of quarter. | - | CSO's. | - | production of Quarterly Progress Report. |
| E. | QUARTERLY, fifth week of quarter; 1 – 3 days. | - | Directorate and CSO's; administrative assistant for project filing should be present; teamleaders have to stand by. | - | discussion on actual progress performance in the projects/ programmes; |
| - | decisions on (dis)-continuation of research projects; | ||||
| - | corrective measures with relation to budgets; | ||||
| - | (steps to) elimination of problems and constraints; | ||||
| - | approval of plans; | ||||
| - | adjustment of project files. |
When the teamleader is of the opinion that the results of a certain project are becoming worthwile to discuss in a wider context, he should be authorized to invite researchers or research clients from elsewhere. Especially in practice-oriented research projects this will facilitate and accelerate the transfer of knowledge to fishermen, fishfarmers, DOF, BFDC, and other end-users.
(39) While the bi-weekly meetings are mainly discussion-oriented, the next monitoring step is the first one aiming at written documentation; the Monthly Progress Report (MPR).
The MPR is a document that has to be produced by every researcher on the last day of every month, with the following contents:
(40) The MPR is delivered on a standard format of one page. Only in special cases (e.g. presentation of endresults) an extra page could be added, but care has to be taken that applied research does not become paperwork. A proposed format for the MPR was presented in Annex D (page 149) of TA-report 10; Table 4 of the present report shows a somewhat shortened version, that would serve the purpose equally well.
(41) The researcher hands the MPR over to his teamleader on the last (working) day of the month. The teamleader critically goes through all MPR's from his programme researchers during the first (working) day of the next month. He compares them with those of previous months and with the original workplans in the project file: this is the actual monitoring job. If everything proceeds according to the plans and budgets, the teamleader signs the MPR. If reasons for deviations from original plans are clearly presented and were discussed with him before, he also signs. If, however, the MPR reflects other activities than planned (or approved later on), he should discuss this with the researcher concerned. The teamleader then adds his judgement of the necessity of the deviations under the heading “REMARKS” on the MPR format.
Table 4 - Format for Monthly Progress Reports
| PROJECT CODE | : | MONTH 19 | ||
| PROJECT TITLE | : | |||
| STATION OF EXECUTION | : | MPR No. | ||
| RESEARCHER | (1): | |||
| (2): | ||||
| SUMMARY OF OUTCOMES OF THE REPORTING MONTH: | ||||
| PROBLEMS/CONSTRAINTS ENCOUNTERED (if any): | ||||
| SUMMARY OF PROPOSED WORK FOR THE NEXT MONTH: | ||||
| SIGNATURE RESEARCHER: | DATE: | |||
| REMARKS: | ||||
| SIGNATURE TEAMLEADER: | DATE: | |||
(42) At the end of the first working week of each month a meeting is scheduled of all teamleaders of a research station with the CSO of that station: a Monthly Programme Meeting. This meeting is a logical follow-up to the Monthly Progress Reports: the CSO is briefed by the teamleaders on progress during the expired month, as well as on plans for the coming month. This briefing should, including discussions, not last more than one hour.
A second hour, thereafter, should be spent on finding solutions for problems and constraints encountered by the researchers. The meeting should end with a clear list of appointments of “who is going to tackle what”. In principle, problem-related actions should be taken as immediate as possible after the meeting.
If the CSO and the teamleader (on the basis of the “REMARKS” of the latter) have doubts about the way a certain project is implemented, they will have to schedule that particular project for discussion in one of the coming bi-weekly research meetings, under presence of the CSO. In very serious cases of deviation from original plans, the CSO might convene a special meeting on that project; this could e.g. happen if a researcher has fallen ill, or if a large experiment was disrupted by unforeseen circumstances.
(43) The most important step (and in fact also the last one) in internal monitoring comes with the three-monthly reporting by the CSO: the Quarterly Progress Report (“QPR”). This report does not only consider research implementation, but also the financial and manpower progress. The objective of QPR's is, to allow the institute management to keep track of all kinds of proceeds, and to take timely corrective actions whereever needed.
The research part of the QPR comprises actually a summing-up and re-editing of the most recent three MPR's of each project. The CSO could produce this research part himself, or ask the teamleaders to assist him. He has to keep in mind, however, that teamleaders are also researchers with their own projects, and that they should not be involved in station administration too much. Thereabove, the CSO can be expected to be a more objective reviewer than the teamleader, and objectivity is of utmost importance in monitoring.
The budget reports are also issued under the responsibility of the CSO; for preparation he will make use of the station's administrative section. Also FRI-Headquarters will have to provide quarterly budget reports.
(44) Statements for the QPR's to be submitted by the administrative sections of all Stations and Headquarters include the following:
In TA-report 08 (Manual for Budgeting and Accounting) formats for all these statements have been provided in Annex C, pages 127 – 135. The research progress can be reported on a modified Monthly Progress Report format; practical all headings can remain the same.
(45) The Stations and Headquarters will have to submit their completed QPR's to the FRI management within 3 weeks after the end of the preceding quarter. TA-report 08 advised to give the assistant director (finance) the responsibility for analysis of the deviation of actual costs from the budget, and for obtaining explanations for such deviations. He will then have to consolidate all reports, and prepare a summary and recommendations for corrective actions. He will have to carry out this work immediately upon receipt of the reports, and conclude it during the fourth week of each quarter.
(46) During the fifth week of each quarter, the progress reports and statements are discussed in a meeting of the Director FRI, Additional Director FRI, and all CSO's: Quarterly Management Meetings. In these meetings, that may last from 1 – 3 days, all progress is evaluated versus the objectives, budgets and plans as documented in the project files, and management decisions are taken. Evaluative conclusions as well as management decisions will have to be laid down in extensive minutes. It is advised, to have the minutes written by the same administrative assistant who is responsible for project filing, since most of the decisions will have to be included in the project files immediately after the meeting.
(47) The minutes should cover all research projects; those where progress is satisfactory will not consume much space, but others might, especially:
These decisions will have to be somewhat elaborated in the minutes, since no hard evaluation criteria can be used: research has a built-in uncertainty for reaching results, and sometimes it is even advisable to continue “unproductive” research to come to absolute answers. During the meeting each project has, evidently, to be projected against its original objectives, but one has constantly to bear in mind that a researcher needs flexibility in order to be able to come to original results.
The minutes will also mention new plans, approaches, or budgets, that are approved in the meeting. Existing plans do not have to be discussed, however, since they were already approved, and documented in the project files before.
Problems and constraints that could not be solved at station level and that are brought to the Directorate, will also have to be highlighted in the minutes, including steps that are or will be taken (and when and by whom) to eliminate them.
(48) The minutes of the Quarterly Management Meetings are, in fact, very important internal monitoring documents for FRI. But monitoring, of course, does not end with producing minutes: there has to be a follow-up again. This follow-up will include the following elements:
(49) The minutes of the Quarterly Management Meetings are sent to the Board of Governors of FRI, with a covering letter that focusses attention to those decisions that need to be reinforced (in retrospect) by the Board. The Board, that should meet at least six-monthly, but preferably quarterly, will use the minutes:
(50) Immediately after the Quarterly Management Meetings, the administrative assistant who wrote the minutes and who is responsible for project filing will use the minutes for updating of the computerized project files. All decisions taken by the FRI management have to be reflected in those files within two weeks after the meeting, so that the management can obtain practically immediately an outprint of the actual situation of any project of FRI.
(51) After the last Quarterly Management Meeting of the financial year (in May), the FRI management will have to continue with a yearly planning session for another 1 – 2 days. During this sessions the accounts of the year will be closed and approved, and the budgets (funds, manpower, facilities) for the coming year are consolidated and approved. Also for these purposes the minutes of the (last four) Quarterly Management Meetings are essential: all approved plans of Stations and Headquarters can be found there, together with their budgetary implications. Moreover, the set of minutes of the previous year will present a trend in expenditures for each project or programme, which facilitates the detailed budgeting for the coming year. The accounting and budgeting procedures themselves are extensively described in TA-report 08.
(52) The minutes of the Quarterly Management Meetings are also a useful tool for the Directorate during preparation of the FRI Annual Report. An Annual Report presents in a short and clear manner all facts, progress and plans of FRI as a whole:
The value of an Annual Report increases strongly when it is issued shortly after termination of the (financial) year. In TA-report 10 a procedure is proposed, that leads to publication of the Annual Report in the course of July. Immediately thereupon, it will have to be distributed to the Board, Ministries, Directorate of Fisheries, BARC, universities, press, and to sister-institutes abroad. This will not only strongly favour the “public relations” of FRI, but it will also stimulate co-operation in an early stage, and prevent starting of comparable research elsewhere.
