8.1 Introduction
8.2 Organizational Structure
8.3 Programme Management
In this chapter IPGRI's basic organizational structure is reviewed and the respective responsibilities of the key players in the organization are outlined. Next, the Panel reviews IPGRI's programme management processes - priority-setting, programme and project planning, resource allocation, and project- and activity-management - by integrating the relevant issues identified in other parts of the report to assess the effectiveness and efficiency with which the programme is orchestrated and managed.
IPGRI is organized into four basic units: three units that are programme-related, plus a Finance & Administration unit as diagrammed in Figure 8.1 below:
The Director General, as head of IPGRI, is responsible for all activities of the Institute. He is also Programme Leader of the SGRP, and serves as Secretary to the CGIAR Genetic Resources Policy Committee as discussed more fully in Chapter 6. The Deputy Director General (Programmes) (DDGP) has two functions. As DDGP, he reports to the DG and is responsible for oversight of all IPGRI programmes. He chairs the Programme Planning and Review Committee (PPRC); and as Director of the Plant Genetic Resources Programme, he has overall responsibility for managing the PGR programme.
The Assistant Director General, the Director-Finance and Administration, and the Director of INIBAP all report to the Director General. Within the programme management context, the Assistant Director General has primary responsibility for donor and Board relations, the INIBAP Director has overall responsibility for managing that programme, and the Finance and Administration Director is responsible for providing general administrative services to the Institute and specifically for personnel, budgets, and monitoring and reporting systems used by IPGRI.
There are also Regional, and Thematic Group Directors reporting to the DDGP. The Regional Directors' primary responsibility is to ensure that the needs and priorities of the region are adequately reflected in IPGRI's strategies and work programmes. The Thematic Directors' primary responsibility is to ensure that IPGRI's strategy and scientific activities adequately underpin global conservation and use needs. Both sets of Directors are responsible for staff within their groups. Whenever staff are physically located in a region, it is the Regional Director who has 'line' responsibility for that staff member - although a Thematic Director may exercise 'staff responsibility by providing oversight on technical aspects and quality controls. The new reporting relationships have been in place for only a few months, and some staff are unsure as to how the structure will work. Some added management - staff communications may yet prove necessary to fully bring staff on board with the concepts and practicalities of the new structure.
Complementing this overall structure are a number of committees that are responsible for priority-setting, programme formulation, review, and reporting, and project/activity planning and implementation. Membership of the key committees in IPGRI is shown in Table 8.1.
Table 8.1: IPGRI's Internal Committees (1997)
|
|
Management Executive Committee |
Management Committee |
Project Planning Review Committee |
Administration Committee |
Co-ordination Committee |
Publication Committee |
Geneflow Committee |
|
MEMBERS | |||||||
|
Director General |
C |
C |
|
|
C |
|
M |
|
DDG (Programme) |
M |
M |
C |
|
M |
C |
M |
|
ADG |
M |
M |
|
|
M |
|
|
|
Dir. - PGRP |
(M) |
(M) |
(M) |
|
|
|
|
|
Dir. - INIBAP |
M |
M |
M |
|
M |
|
|
|
Dir. - FOA |
M |
M |
|
C |
M |
|
|
|
Regional Dirs. |
|
M |
M |
M (1) |
|
|
|
|
Thematic Dirs. |
|
M |
M |
M (1) |
M |
|
M (1) |
|
Relevant Section Heads |
|
|
|
M (4) |
|
|
M (2) |
|
SGRP Coordinator |
|
M |
M |
|
M |
|
|
|
TOTAL MEMBERSHIP |
5 |
13 |
10 |
7 |
6+? |
8 |
5+ |
* Plus there are nine other Task Forces or Committees for specific functions or tasks:
|
In-situ Task Force (ISTF) |
- |
15 members. |
|
SINGER Task Force |
- |
9 members. |
|
Maccarese Committee |
- |
6 members. |
|
Centre on Public Awareness |
- |
4 members. |
|
Multilateral Study T.F. |
- |
5 members. |
|
IPGRI Genetic Policy Committee |
- |
14 members. |
|
Gender Committee |
- |
5 members. |
|
WWW Wkg. Group |
- |
12 members. |
|
PGR Newsletter Editorial Committee- |
- |
4 members. |
Project Coordinators and Activity managers implement the work programme and report to either the Thematic, or Regional Directors. Project Coordinators prepare project proposals and ensure that such projects comply with the agreed objectives, resource allocation, and time frames. Activity Managers are directly responsible for the activities that comprise a project - for preparing workplans and resource budgets, for providing leadership where appropriate, and for monitoring progress against the agreed plan.
IPGRI's lines of reporting and communications are complex, particularly in those instances where the staff are delivering a thematic project in a region. The Institute's mandate and mode of operation requires coordination between different thematic, regional, and disciplinary staff. In the Panel's view the approach taken by IPGRI is sensible, and appears to work reasonably well - primarily because the Institute is small enough that competing demands on scientists' time are worked out in a collegial manner between staff who know each other well. Elsewhere in this report (Chapter 4.8) the Panel has noted the less-than-optimal interactions between headquarters and the Regional Directors in both administrative and programme terms and has made a number of recommendations.
8.3.1 Priority-Setting
8.3.2 Programme Planning and Review
8.3.3 Project Planning, Review and Management
The Panel reviewed the key components of IPGRI's programme management activities - priority-setting; programme planning and review; project planning and review; resource allocation; and project, activity management processes. In each case it reviewed current processes, and identified issues that emerge from the current practices. The Panel noted the excellent documentation of how IPGRI goes about its decision-making activities and who is responsible for each stage of each activity.
In September 1996, IPGRI's Board of Trustees approved the priority-setting principles and processes that take account of:
· external partners' needs: IPGRI argues that "...through partnerships, IPGRI ensures that its programme is needs-driven and not based solely on academically-determined priorities... this bottom-up approach is the basis of IPGRI's programme choices..."; and· compatibility with IPGRI's own set of four objectives.
Table 8.2 provides a quick overview of who, and organizationally where, decisions are made within the IPGRI organizational structure.
Table 8.2: IPGRI's Management process for Decision-Making
|
Level of Operation. |
Decision-Making Body |
Oversight Body |
Consultation with: |
Guidelines/Principles |
Where/how is the decision-making documented? |
|
Activities |
· Project coordinator · Activity manager |
· Group Director · (Regional & Thematic) · Network Members · Panel of Experts |
· Project team · Partners such as Network members, Steering Committee, Group of Experts |
· Project document · IPGRI guiding principles |
· Activity reports within Annual Project Reports · Minutes of Meetings with Partners · Minutes of Expert Panel Meetings |
|
Projects |
Project Coordinators |
PPRC |
· Project team and other IPGRI staff · Partners such as Network members, Steering Committee, Group of Experts |
· IPGRI objectives · IPGRI guiding principles |
· Annual project report · Minutes of Network Meetings · Minutes of Expert Panel Meetings |
|
Project Set |
DDG Programme with the PPRC |
· MEC · Director General · Board |
· PPRC |
· Medium-Term Plan · IPGRI's mandate, mission and objectives · Resources allocation |
· Minutes of meetings of the PPRC · Minutes of the MEC · IPGRI Annual Report |
|
Programme |
Management Executive Committee |
· IPGRI Board · TAC |
· IPGRI Management & all IPGRI staff |
· Medium-Term Plan · TAC External Programme Review · In-house Thematic and Regional Reviews |
· Minutes of Board Meetings. · Board approved thematic and regional strategies |
|
Strategy |
IPGRI Board on recommendation by DG |
· CGIAR · TAC |
· IPGRI Staff, · IPGRI partners and donors |
· CGIAR vision, mission and goals · Spirit of Lucerne |
· IPGRI's Strategy: Diversity for Development. IPGRI, 1992. |
The Panel observes that the 'bottom-up' approach adopted by IPGRI can, and seemingly does, leave open the possibility that IPGRI's agenda will be donor-driven in some situations where the better approach may have been a centre-driven one, given the Institute's access to cutting-edge research. Permitting the agenda to be externally driven may well have been appropriate in IPGRI's early days when the strategic direction, degree of partner acceptance, and the modus operandi were still under development. Now that IPGRI has a well-developed mission, its focus of attention and work programme activities in the various regions can be more adequately justified with reference to the Institute's overriding mission and objectives. The Panel encourages IPGRI to continue to respond to external partners in a participatory manner that is cognizant of the partners' needs and is also reflective of strategic concerns for the management of global genetic resources.
IPGRI's Board of Trustees is ultimately responsible for the programmatic content of the Institute's work, and provides guidance to management to enable them to carry out the programme intended. The key IPGRI committee responsible for programme planning is the Programme Planning and Review Committee (PPRC), which, in turn, is responsible for providing advice and assistance to the DDGP on overall planning, coordination, and ongoing review of the programme at the institute level. It also provides advice on specific project-level issues to the DDGP for the PGR Programme; the INIBAP programme; and to the CGIAR/GR Support Programme. The Committee meets twice yearly to review project proposals, budgets and workplans, and progress against budget. It discusses resource allocations between competing claims and reviews key programme-related policies and strategies.
The Panel noted the recent Board discussion (Draft BOT8 Minutes paras. 70-71, 74, et al) in Cotonou regarding the need for a much-improved strategic analysis of the project portfolio in terms of resource allocations by theme, by impact and by region and basic objective. Such an analysis is required to translate the broad and overarching themes outlined in 'Diversity for Development' into a set of strategic objectives that can guide the implementation of the Institute's Medium Term Plan. For example, the Board needs to address such issues as the relative sizes of the INIBAP and IPGRI programmes and budgets - a decision that must flow from, and be consistent with, the Institute's overall strategy. Similarly, the relative proportion of staff and financial resources to be allocated to each of the projects within the PGR portfolio is a key agenda item for the Board and the PPRC and must reflect a clearly articulated strategy in respect of each of the items noted above. The Board is aware of the need for such strategies, and the Panel also notes the ongoing efforts by Management to address this need.
To ensure programme balance and to determine the relative priorities and budgetary resource allocations, the Panel recommends that Management strengthen its programme planning and review process to articulate further the linkages between the institutional, thematic, and regional strategy documents, and the programme priorities that guide the implementation of the MTP (1998-2000), and the associated budgetary allocation processes.
The cyclical process by which new activities and projects are brought into the formal project list and existing projects and activities are reviewed, as well as responsibilities for each part of the process are outlined in Table 8.3:
Table 8.3: IPGRI's Project Planning and Review process
|
Time/Activity |
Report |
Prepared by |
In collab. With |
Submitted to |
|
Activity initiation |
||||
|
|
Concept note |
Staff member |
|
Proj. Coord. |
|
Activity proposal |
Proj. Coord. + staff member |
Resource persons + F&A |
GD + DDG-P. or D-I |
|
|
November |
Modified Project workplan |
Proj. Coord |
GD + DDG-P or D-I |
PPRC |
|
Project Initiation |
||||
|
|
Concept note |
Staff member |
|
GD + PPRC or D-I |
|
Project proposal |
Task Force |
GD + F&A + DDG-P or D-I |
PPRC |
|
|
Project workplan |
Proj. Coord. |
Project Team + GD + F&A |
DDG-P + PPRC |
|
|
Activity continuation |
||||
|
|
Activity workplan |
Activity Manager |
Proj. Coord. + F&A |
GD + DDG-P |
|
November |
Modified Project workplan |
Project Coordinator |
|
DDG-P + PPRC |
|
Annual project reporting |
(Assuming that PPRC wilt spend an average of 1 hour par project during the November PPRC) |
|||
|
October |
Budget pro forma for following year |
Project Coordinator |
Act. Man. |
F&A |
|
October |
Technical activity report |
Act. Man. |
|
Proj. Coord. |
|
November |
Budget proposal and workplan for following year |
Project Coordinator |
Act. Man. + F&A + GD or D-I |
DDG-P + PPRC |
|
November |
Technical project report |
Project Coordinator |
GD or D-I |
DDGP + PPRC |
|
December |
Consolidated annual work programme |
DDGP |
PPRC |
MEC |
|
January |
IPGRI An. Rep Contribution |
Project Coordinator |
Act. Man + GD or D-I |
Publ. Unit |
Project implementation is carried out by Project, and Activity Teams. Project teams are composed of the Project Coordinator, the Activity Managers and other resource persons contributing to the project. They provide scientific and technical guidance to the project as a whole; discuss resource allocations within the project; and advise on activity discontinuation and project termination as appropriate. Activity teams comprise the activity Manager and the staff contributing to the activity. The team coordinates the work and monitors progress against plan. There is, in addition, a project/activity budgetary control mechanism that monitors actual expenditures against planned expenditures by activity on a monthly basis. This control system is currently being enhanced to include additional data on total costs, including allocated overheads.
The Panel notes that the project preparation and review process, which works well internally, is both thorough and includes all interested parties within IPGRI. It also notes that consultation with partners is recognized as an essential element of the project planning process at IPGRI. The Panel therefore encourages Project Coordinators and team members to intensify such consultations where needed, so that such alliances with external institutions and scientists is based on genuine two-way consultations that enable the comparative advantages of each partner to be recognized and built upon - to the mutual benefits of both.
