2.1 Overview
2.2 Evolution in Goals and Objectives
2.3 Refinements in Priorities and Strategies
2.4 Adjustments in Programme Structure and Balance
2.5 Changes in Organization and Management
2.6 Alignments in Staffing
2.7 Rehabilitation of Physical Plant and Research Farm
2.8 Assessment
From the outset IRRI has had the necessary flexibility and means to adjust to changing circumstances and needs. At no time in its 32-year history, however, has the Institute made changes of the magnitude undertaken in this review period, 1987-1992. Although the transformation, launched to accomplish the vision projected in its strategic plan IRRI Toward 2000 and Beyond, is not yet complete, fundamental changes in direction, structure, and style have been made; new approaches to research implementation are in use; and a restructured working environment has been established.
Forces contributing to the reoriented, refocused, and to some extent, reduced IRRI of today and tomorrow are many and varied. Critical among them are two. The first is global - rising and appropriate concerns about equity, our natural resources, and the environment. For IRRI, this translates in part into the challenge of sustainability: through what kinds of production and resource use systems that can be sustained over time can the world achieve needed rates of growth in the output of rice farming systems? The second involves the availability of funding. Because of IRRI's excellent track record and the centrality of rice to the lives of so many millions of people, the Institute, prior to this review period, has enjoyed remarkable growth in financial support. With minor exceptions, planned budgets were met; funds arrived on time; and requests for special project funding were usually favourably received. Since the late 1980's (and prospectively in the years immediately ahead), IRRI has had to cope with financial uncertainty. Even reduced target budgets were sometimes not met. The climate at IRRI, as in other mature CGIAR Centres, therefore, is one of retrenchment rather than growth. Therefore, now more than ever before, IRRI needs to be as cost effective as possible with the capacity to make rapid adjustments while minimizing the negative impact of changes on its programmes, most of which are of necessity long-term in nature. Looking ahead, IRRI must be able to deal with much more complicated sets of interacting forces than in the first quarter century of its productive operation.
Discussion of the nature and magnitude of many of the changes involved in IRRI's transformation follows.
In its new statement of goals and objectives, IRRI's historical focus on farmers and production, while retained, is substantially broadened. Concerns for those who come after us, for consumers and for the less advantaged, are specifically recognized. As reformulated, IRRI's stated goal is to help "improve the well-being of present and future generations of rice farmers and consumers particularly those with low incomes." How? As before, by generating and disseminating rice-related knowledge and technology and helping to enhance national research systems. Such knowledge and technology, however, are to be carefully designed so as to be of short- and long-term environmental, social, and economic benefit. Thus, IRRI remains a one-commodity centre - but a commodity centre whose programmes are restructured and specifically oriented to rice ecosystems.
At the programme level, IRRI's priorities as expressed in its new strategic and operating plans call for the Institute:
· to remain a global Centre for rice research;· to continue to preserve the rice germplasm of the world and maintain a definitive collection of rice knowledge and documentation;
· to make all activities consistent with environmental enhancement and sustainability goals;
· to increase research, especially that conducted in a collaborative mode, on the less favourable ecosystems (thus of necessity, decentralizing some activities to off-campus locations);
· to seek new higher yield potentials in all ecosystems, and strive for a yield breakthrough;
· to do more strategic and less applied research in part by expanding collaboration with other advanced institutions;
· to shift from direct support of national research systems to far greater use of the collaborative mode (i.e. as partners in a global rice research system); and to retain its traditional geographic focus on Asia but not to limit its work to that region.
IRRI's new environmentally focused strategy arose from the Institute's and the world's rising concerns about such issues as land degradation, soil erosion, water shortages, and pollution - all of which were reinforced by the policy directions in which the CGIAR and TAC are moving.
Historically, IRRI's research programme structure was dominated by the priorities established in the Centre's 13 relatively autonomous disciplinary departments. Research resources rested in these strong hands. The Director for research and training in reality was only in charge of training and had few flexible resources at his disposal. Programmes did not control resources but depended on the allocations made by Department Heads. This research structure did not lead to coherent, centre-wide priority setting or to easy organization of cross-disciplinary work. It more nearly approximated the disciplinary departmental model commonly employed in academic institutions with inter-departmental collaboration in programmes. Whatever its shortcomings, the model was supportive of productive science. Over time, it produced the stream of highly valuable outputs that established IRRI as a premier rice research institution. Especially noteworthy were programmes in genetic evaluation and utilization, soil and crop management, control and management of pests, constraints and consequences of new rice technology, and collaboration with national programmes. Some non-research activities were co-mingled with research at the departmental and programme levels. Other non-research programmes such as training and information, were lodged in separate departments.
IRRI's revised research structure starts with rice ecosystems rather than the historic departmental pattern. Historically, ecological differences were recognized in some programmes and projects. But the new structure forces cross-disciplinary teamwork oriented fully to four broad but specific ecosystems with a fifth to deal with cross-ecosystem issues. Beginning with the first year of operation under the revised structure the percentage distributions of total direct research expenditures, core plus complementary, across the five programmes is shown in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Percentage Allocation of Research Funds Across Ecosystem Programmes: 1990-1992
|
RICE PROGRAMME |
1990 |
1991 |
1992 |
1993 |
|
Irrigated |
30 |
39 |
40 |
43 |
|
Rainfed Lowland |
15 |
14 |
18 |
16 |
|
Upland |
10 |
9 |
10 |
9 |
|
Deepwater and tidal wetland |
8 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
|
Cross-ecosystem |
36 |
30 |
25 |
25 |
|
TOTAL* |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
* Some years do not add to 100 percent because of rounding.
This newly adopted ecological orientation, initially, was largely are classification of existing work. What put teeth into the new structure and forced the formation of interdisciplinary teams, however, was the installation of a matrix management system and the requirement that projects be defined to respond to the needs of each specific rice ecosystem.
IRRI programmes not included in the above five were grouped together in the new structure under the heading of International Programmes. The proportional distributions of core plus complementary funds in the five international programmes 1990-1993 are shown in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2 Percentage Allocation of Funds Among International Programmes: 1990-1993
|
INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMME |
1990 |
1991 |
1992 |
1993 |
|
Germplasm conservation/distribution |
5 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
|
Information, knowledge exchanges |
13 |
22 |
18 |
17 |
|
Networks |
10 |
15 |
14 |
11 |
|
Training |
23 |
26 |
28 |
25 |
|
Country and regional projects |
49 |
33 |
36 |
44 |
|
TOTAL |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
In terms of 1992 dollars, IRRI's core expenditures declined from $35 million in 1987 to $30.2 million in 1992 while special project funding rose from $11.9 million in 1987 to $15.3 million in 1992.
In 1992 estimated expenditures in International Programmes is about $12 million or 70 percent of the $17 million outlay for Research Programmes. Complementary projects account for about 40 percent of the expenditures in International Programmes versus 15 percent in Research Programmes.
While the above provides some indication of the nature and magnitude of IRRI's structural, programmatic and managerial changes, to see the whole picture, one needs to examine the Institute's overall organization in 1987 (Figure 2.1) and compare it with the one that exists today (Figure 2.2). Note that in 1987, IRRI had 13 disciplinary research departments and five global research services, each reporting to the DG. Today, there are eight disciplinary-based divisions (to be reduced to seven in the near future) and the five research ecosystem programmes whose heads and leaders report not to the DG but to the DDG Research.
In 1987, IRRI's senior administrative structure included posts of DG, Senior DDG, DDG plus four Directors - one for Research and Training with only the training programme reporting to him, one for Administration, one for Protocol and Liaison, and the fourth for Budgets and Accounts. The two DDGs and the four Directors reported to the DG.
Figure 2.1 IRRI Organizational Chart - May 1987
Figure 2.2 IRRI Organizational Structure - February 1992
Today's senior management team constitutes a slightly larger but more specialized group than previously existed. In part, this much strengthened capability was installed in response to the 1987 External Programme and Management Reviews. IRRI's current senior directing staff consists of the DG, and his DDGs for International Programmes, for Research, and for Finance and Administration. Reporting to the latter are the Directors for Finance, for Administration, and for Operations. (The functions normally handled by a director of personnel or human resource development are shared among the DDG for Finance and Administration, the Director for Administration, and the head of the human resources office who works mostly with nationally recruited staff.)
It is noteworthy that only one of the seven director level posts is now occupied by a person who was at IRRI in May 1987. With few exceptions, the same is true for the division heads, programme leaders, and heads of centres. IRRI's changes in leadership have indeed been sweeping and all embracing.
At present, only the research programmes are managed under the matrix system. While matrix management is discussed in some depth in Chapter 4, it is useful to note that in research, the programme controls most of the funds with the flow being from programme leaders to project coordinators to scientists. In turn, the divisions provide disciplinary homes for the researchers, provide scientific leadership, and help promote the search for scientific excellence. In addition, they make available research support not obtained from the centralized services.
Not shown in Figure 2.2 are three important standing committees -steering, programme, and management - which have distinct terms of reference and meet at regular intervals. Critical to the functioning of the new structure is the Liaison, Coordination and Planning Unit which synthesizes information and expedites its flow, services the Board of Trustees, and in numerous other ways expedites the operation of the Institute by providing direct support to the DG.
One may grasp a further sense of the depth of the changes which have taken place in the last five years by noting:
· that in December 1987, IRRI had 72 internationally recruited staff (IRS), 62 on core and 10 on special project funds. In 1992 the numbers are 78, 60, and 18 respectively. Since January 1988, a total of 41 international staff have departed IRRI and 49 have been recruited;· that the nationally recruited staff (NRS) has been materially downsized in both the researcher/manager and support categories. On the core budget as of 31 December 1987 to 31 July 1992, NRS researchers/managers decreased from 615 to 502, a drop of 113. NRS support staff numbers dropped from 1,595 to 1,114, a decrease of 481. In the same period, special project funded NRS numbers decreased from 243 to 221 while those on temporary appointments declined from 295 to 221. 196 vacant core positions were also abolished. All told, IRRI's NRS was downsized by 886 positions. This leaner and tighter arrangement was made possible by the merger of departments into divisions and by centralizing and streamlining other operations. This staff reduction was done on a semi-voluntary semi-mandatory basis through of a special separation programme and by evaluating and abolishing expendable vacant positions;
· IRS appointments are now made on limited term contracts for periods of one to five years. Contracts renewed to extend beyond 10 years must be reported to the Board of Trustees. Previously, contracts were renewed annually but the automatic nature of the renewal process was such that, de facto staff tended to assume that they had continuous tenure.
A master IRRI campus and physical plant plan was developed to establish areas or zones for research, for administrative support, and for public functions. An aggressive US$15.6 million programme of rehabilitation, refurbishing and construction, funded largely by special capital project monies, is now well under way. Due to IRRI's age (now over 30 years) and the state of its facilities, such an extensive renewal programme was desperately needed for safety and for effectiveness of operations. An extraordinary effort was required by the DG and the directing staff to raise the funding needed to implement this campus-wide initiative as only US$3.7 million could be made available from IRRI's core funds. The successful fund raising campaign produced the US$11.9 million which was provided, over and above their regular CGIAR contributions, by 6 of IRRI's long-standing donors.4
4 The donors and the sums they provided in thousands of U.S. dollars were: Germany, 6,856; Japan, 2,871; Italy, 750; France, 710; Netherlands, 655; and Canada, 87.
The land area devoted to research plots at IRRI headquarters was substantially reduced, especially in the rainfed portion of the experimental farm. This was achieved in part through the increase in research work done away from headquarters for the less favourable ecosystems, in partnership with NARS, and in part through the efficiencies gained through consolidation into the Central Research Farm. This allows the Institute to establish a cropping system that includes a fallow period of about 25 percent.
The foregoing is not a fully complete account of the transformations completed or under way at IRRI. Changes, in prospect and already made, permeate every facet of the institution's staff, programmes, facilities, and culture. To plan and implement so many changes so fast - while trying simultaneously to sustain programmes and output - induces stress on the pan of management, staff, families, and the community at large. Much that was badly needed has now been accomplished. A great deal more is still in process. Stress and uncertainty induced by change can more easily be managed under conditions of growth than when retrenchment is necessary. IRRI has not had that luxury.
It is our view that to date, the following are among the key effects of IRRI's transformation:-
1. The research effort directed to improving the lot of the less advantaged producers and consumers in the poor resource areas has been systematized and intensified. While it is difficult to be precise, perhaps the shift of resources from work involving irrigated ecosystems to the other generally less favourable ecosystems is of the order of 20 to 25 percent. This has been done on grounds of equity considerations. It is fully recognized that returns per dollar of research expenditures are usually greater for work done in favourable ecosystems than in inherently unfavourable ones such as most of the rainfed areas. The rationale is straightforward. To help improve the lot of less advantaged producers and rural consumers, and the land resource base, researchers must work directly with the agroecosystems where such people predominate.2. IRRI's ecosystem research orientation has been made explicit, is in use, and to varying degrees, multidisciplinary teams are now productively engaged. Programmatic planning, organization, monitoring and review have now gone beyond the stage where ongoing projects were simply shifted from one category to another.
3. Direct and indirect expenditures of effort on management have increased relative to those devoted to science. This has occurred for at least four reasons. The first is that the capacity of senior management has been increased. At the same time, the numbers of core IRS scientists has remained more or less the same while NRS numbers involved in research have declined. Given the situation that existed at IRRI five years ago, it was imperative that a much more effective financial, personnel, physical plant and scientific research management capability be installed. That has been done.
A second factor contributing to the increased administrative load is the effort required to respond to the growing requirements of the CGIAR and TAC, and to service IRRI's Board of Trustees. To execute its responsibilities properly, trustees have become much more demanding in the analyses, position papers, and services they require of staff.
The third reason for the relative increase in effort devoted to management and administration is the shift from single-scientist/single department-driven activities to interdisciplinary, ecosystem-based research. This has demanded very intense dialogue among scientists from different divisions. IRRI's efforts to enhance quality control (e.g. programme and peer reviews) have also added to the time spent on activities other than research.
A fourth reason is that IRRI's budget situation has required that activities be devoted to identifying, formulating, and seeking support for special projects, and to public awareness. Such activities often add more than their proportional share to the work load, especially that of administration.
4. For many of the reasons spelled out above, IRRI's programmatic output (research and education) understandably declined in the early part of the review period. Staff feel that now IRRI's curve of productivity and output is rising.
5. IRRI's new programmes and projects are largely in place. The scientific staff - both those who have been with the Institute for some time and those who are relatively new - are qualified and committed to meeting the challenges ahead.
6. IRRI's buildings, laboratories, farm and related facilities are being rehabilitated and refurbished to standards required for safe and effective operation.
IRRI received strong encouragement from concerned partners and stakeholders to make fundamental changes and to do so promptly. The recommendations made by the external reviews of 1987 were far reaching and demanding. They were endorsed by TAC and the CGIAR. IRRI, to the full credit of its management and Board, endorsed the body of the recommendations received and has implemented virtually all of them (Appendix VII). Although the results of the change process are not yet fully realized, much has been achieved and the good-faith efforts of all staff are clearly visible.
