Citation
Project handbook research and extension : emphasizing farming systems research and extension

Material Information

Title:
Project handbook research and extension : emphasizing farming systems research and extension
Series Title:
Working draft - Farming Systems Support Project ; 3
Alternate Title:
Research and extension emphasizing farming systems research and extension
Creator:
Farming Systems Support Project
Affiliation:
University of Florida -- Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publisher:
International Programs, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
1 v. (various pagings) ; 28 cm.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact Digital Services (UFDC@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
ocm4713 ( NOTIS )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
PROJECT HANDBOOK
RESEARCH AND EXTENSION
(Emphasizing Farming Systems
Research and Extension)
Farming Systems Support Project
International Programs Office of Agriculture and
Institute of Food and Office of Multisectoral Development
Agricultural Sciences Bureau for Science and Technology
University of Florida Agency for International Development
Gainesville, Florida 32611 Washington, D.C. 20523
Working Draft #3




PROJECT HANDBOOK
RESEARCH AND EXTENSION
(Emphasizing Fanning Systems Research and Extension)
Fanning Systems Support Project
University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 February 1985




Table of Contents
Project Handbook
Technical Assistance
Research and Extension
(emphasizing farming systems)
OPERATIONAL SUMMARY OS-I
Chapter I: INTRODUCTION I-I
A. Methodology I-i
B. Audience I-I
C. Donor Processes 1-2
D. Handbook Organization and Use 1-2
E. Farming Systems Research and Extension 1-3
F. The Farming System 1-3
G. Emphasis on Models 1-4
H. Review Panel 1-4
Chapter II: OPERATIONAL. PRINCIPLES II-1
A. Farmer's Perspective 11-2
B. Farmer Participation 11-3
C. Problem-solving Approach 11-4
D. Technology Innovation Process 11-5
E. The Macro-Environment 11-6
F. Institutionalization and Management 11-7
Chapter III: PROJECT DEVELOPMENT III-1
A. R/E In Country Strategy III-1
B. Host Country Interests 111-2
C. Conceptualize and Strategize 111-3
D. Early Impact--Visibility III -5
E. Basic National Capacity III-6,
F. International Technology Transfer 111-7
G. Don't Underestimate the Potential 111-8
H. Linkages, R/E and ITN 111-8
I. Design Considerations 111-9,
Chapter IV: PROJECT DESIGN IV-1
A. Introduction IV-1
B. Technical Design Considerations IV-1
Use of Models; Activity Assignments-Subject Matter Research, Area-specific
Research, Technical Liaison and Support,
Field Extension
C. Management Design Considerations IV-6
Personnel Training; Host Institution
Management--Logistics, Financial
Resources, Linkages, Strategic Planning,
Personnel Management and Development
TC-1




D. Organizational Design Considerations IV-12
Organization Alternatives--Area-specific
Research, Subject Matter Research,
Relating Subject Matter and Area-specific
Research (Matrix), Technical Liaison and
Support,
E. Evaluation Considerations IV-16
Suggested Plan and System, Objectives
in Evaluation
F. Paper Preparation IV-19.
Project Paper Outline--Abstract, Background, Description, Analyses (Technical, Economic,
Social, Administrative), Financial-Plan,
Implementation Plan, Evaluation Plan
CHAPTER V: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
A. Introduction V-i
B. Pre-Implementation Management V-2
C. Team Member Selection V-2
D. Team Orientation, General V-3
Family, Country, Library, Living Conditions,
Orientation Kit, Cultural Positioning,
Security
E. Team Orientation, Professional V-4
Project Purpose, Overseas Operations, Team.
Identity, Key Actors, Political Awareness, Host Institution Reward Structure, Keep to the Task, Communications, Related Projects
F. Backstop Structure and Administration V-5
Key Actors, Management System, Administrative
Procedures, Routines; Special Problems
G. Project Start-Up V-6
Calendar, Review Design, Host Institution Relationships, Gaining Acceptance, Early
Impact, Team Deployment, Project Visibility,
H. Objectives in Team and Task Management V-8
I. Managing Evaluation V-9
Take Charge, Evaluation System, Select Measures, Information Gathering, Image
J. Managing New Components V-12
Be Useful, Take Advantage of Momentum,
Get Close to Production
K. Going the Extra Mile V-12
L. Host Institution Management V-13
Strategic Planning, Resource Acquisition,
Research-Extension Linkage
CHAPTER VI: PROJECT EVALUATION
A. Introduction VI-1
B. Preparation for the Task VI-2
Paper Trail, Briefing,
C. Evaluation Strategy VI-3
TC -2




D. Objectives and Self-Evaluation VI-4
E. Strive for Objectivity VI-4
F. Validity VI-5
G. Extra-Evaluation Agendas VI-6
H. Evaluation Report Outline VI-7
Project Evaluation Summary (PES),
Introduction, Executive Summary, General
Comments, Evaluation, Extra-Scope of Work
Issues, People and Places, Annexes APPENDICES
A. Technology Innovation Process Model A-i
B. Economic Analysis B-i
C. Logical Framework C-i
D. Technical Liaison and Support D-i
E. Institutions and Institutionalization E-1
F. Pre-Departure Preparation for Team F-i
G. Activity (Flow) Chart G-1
H. International Technology Network H-i
I. Enabling linkage I-i
ANNOTATED LITERATURE
Team Leaders Handbook AL-i
Hayami and Ruttan (Agricultural Development) AL-i
Patton (Evaluation) AL-2
Arndt, et al (Research Productivity) AL-3
TC-3




OPERATIONAL SUMMARY
Purpose of this section is to summarize in short, direct
assertions the guidelines that have been stated and explained in the Handbook. It follows the handbook directly, and by referring to the table of contents you can find the more detailed treatment.
I. Introduction
A. The handbook is a synthesis of experience.
B. It is intended for all of the personnel involved in
the life of a donor project.
C. The donor process from project development to evaluation
is described.
D. The handbook is organized around the typical process.
E. FSR/E is considered vital to the conventional R/E
process and is defined broadly.
F. The "farming system" is also defined broadly.
G. Emphasis is placed on models to help with communication.
H. Panel which reviewed working draft #2 is listed. Chapter II. Operational Principles
A. FSR/E deals with technology from farmer's viewpoint.
B. Farmer involvement is essential to FSR/E.
C. FSR/E is a problem-solving approach.
D. FSR/E is essential to the technology innovation process.
E. Research and extension systems make up only one
component of the institutional structure, called the
Macro-Environment, needed for agricultural development.
F. Technical assistance in FSR/E needs to be oriented to
institution building, not just the success of a project.
OS-i




Chapter III. Project Development
A. Every country needs research and extension, and economic analysis is not needed to justify an R/E project. Other components are also needed--favorable policies, markets and infrasture, but you do not need to wait for them to be in place to start building R/E capacity.
Potential of an R/E project is enhanced by two extraproject activities--including research and extension institution building in your policy dialogue with host government and seeking collaboration of other donors in building and protecting basic R/E capacity.
B. Design the project to support genuine country needs and interests. Don't undermine these interests in order to develop a neat, easy-to-manage project.
C. Conceptualize the project carefully and completely, using the technology innovation process model which has been developed from experience. Make use of international sources of technology and keep within country resources. To the extent that is feasible, deal with both research and extension in the same project.
D. Expect relatively early impact from the project and
build it into project concept. Visibility gained from an early impact can facilitate institutional development.
E. Think in terms of basic national capacity. BNC can be defined for the country and can be on a modest enough scale that any country can afford it.
F. The international technology network is steadily
improving. Countries need a system for working effectively with it, and the project can be a significant help to this end.
G. Don't underestimate your own potential as a donor in
helping a country develop its R/E capability and its capability to work with other donor agencies and international agencies.
H. Linkages are essential, especially those between
research and extension, those needed to acquire resources, and those that tap into the international stock of technology.
I. Develop realistic expectations of the design team.
Chapter IV. Project Design
A. Orient design to the single technology innovation
process if you are working with either research or extension-or both.
B. The TIP model provides a firm base for FSR/E and will help you determine how research and extension can function in collaboration with each other. OS-2




The functions of the model must (a) be translated into
activities (b) which are assigned to an administrative entity,
(c) which must relate its own internal activities to each other and (d) to those activities assigned to the other entity.
Four activities are identified: Subject matter research, area specific research, technical liaison and support, and area specific extension. The functions essential to technology innovation are likely to fall into more than one activity assignment and many of the functions can be performed equally well by either research or extension. For effective linkage between research and extension it is necessary that both deal in many of the functions, each one serving its owninterests.
This problem is treated at length.
C. The technical aspects of R/E are often the easiest to work with. Greatest need lies in organization and management. A project can often make an important impact in management with relatively little monetary cost. Even the very design of a project can facilitate the host institution manager's task.
Major management problems are inadequate logistic support (caused by too many personnel for budget), inadequate financial support, inadequate linkage with international sources of technology and with extension, and lack of strategic planning.
D. There are various effective alternatives for
organization, some of which can be implemented with little trouble. Analyze the alternatives carefully before any one is supported by the project. Any effective organization will insure
(a) that all functions of the TIP are covered and (b) that job descriptions are written so that the functions are actually executed.
E. An important function of project design is to provide for realistic and useful evaluations. Not only suggest an evaluation plan, but also analyze it for its realism and feasibility of execution. It has been found that both design and implementation, as well as evaluation, can be usefully oriented to objectives.
F. You can help make the design task easier and more
effective by such actions as these. Help establish the paper trail of those who have already worked on the project or earlier projects that are relevant; brief the team; bring team leader to country early for some analyses and to structure his task; facilitate donor-design team contact; work as closely as is feasible with host country personnel; keep the team fully informed; and start writing the paper early.
Chapter IV. Project Implementation
A. Two entities are involved intimately, the field team
and its back stop team in the home office. Rapport between them is worth some management time and financial investment.
OS-3




B. Use time between successful proposal and actual project start up for pre-implementation management activities that will facilitate project implementation.
C. Various criteria need to be applied in team member selection, not simply experience and technical capability.
D. You are completely dependent on the team you put in the field--and the families. Don't cut corners in orienting and preparing the team for the assigment. Be lavish with the information you supply. If you do not have it, get it.
E. The team needs a professional orientation in addition to the general orientation it needs along with the family members.
F. Take time and invest some resources in setting up the backstop structure and administration. It will pay off.
G. Identify closely with the host institution and seek its help in field initiation of team and organization of your work. Keep team visibility low. Blend in as much as you can.
H. No matter how good the analysis, the design, and the work that preceded you and the team, the project is now your responsibility. Have your objectives clear in terms that make sense -to you. Use these objectives to manage both individual and team effort. And take charge.
I. Anticipate evaluations from the start. If the
evaluation plan was well done, you can use it for your own management. Document your efforts, your results, and your rationale. Don't hesitate to use your own criteria and explain them to the evaluation team. Develop a positive project image. Face problems squarely and solve them; don;t dwell on them in converstation. Finally be able to explain the project fully and clearly.
IJ. If your project is adding a new component to either
research or extension, seek the ways it can be helpful, identify with other positive things going on, and make the new component helpful, especially to those who feel threatened without any real basis for the fears.
K. Go the extra mile. Keep host institution needs in mind and do what is reasonable to help out even beyond the requirements of the contract. Few projects are successful when the implementation team worries only about its contract responsibilities.
L. A major need of the host institution is to improve its management. You can't be pushy, but as you and host institution management identify needs, you will find that with a little imagination you can help out much more than is at first apparent. Don't expect to achieve dramatic results and impact and do not attempt to push host institution management farther and faster than it is prepared to move.
Os -4




Chapter VI. Project Evaluation
A. The purpose of an evaluation is not to establish error
and to place blame--not even to discover and publish the ultimate truth. It is to help improve the project. Empathy and a positive attitude are helpful and need not compromise your responsibility.
B. Prepare carefully for the task. Study the paper trail, insist on adequate briefing, and know and organize your team.
C. Develop your own evaluation strategy, including
objectives and scope of work, as well as your methods and style of operating. Resist temptation to make recommendations that cannot be achieved or have only marginal value.
D. Make use of project objectives, translated into team objectives to the extent feasible. The more you can seek the genuine contribution of the implementation team, the greater the chance that your report will be taken seriously. Give the team adequate opportunity for input.
E. Achieving objectivity in the short time normally allowed for an evaluation is much more difficult than it appears to be. So-called objective measures are little help, if you haven't been completely objective in 'selecting the objective measures. Your best defense is to keep constantly in mind how difficult it is to achieve objectivity.
F. Validity, likewise, is difficult. Start writing report early to help you identify data gaps and data inconsistencies while you still have time to work on them. Explain, data and how you are using it as evidence. Never use a question' in an interview that can be answered with a "e" or "no." This type question almost always yields faulty information.
C. You may be asked for opinion or evaluation of persons that has little to do with your project evaluation responsibility. Think carefully before writing a second report that includes elements not in the official report.
H. Outline your report and keep it consistent. Avoid such wording as "G should be commended for ....". Then you don't have to say later that "H should be criticized for,,.." Keep report impersonal to the the extent feasible, Deal with events, not people.
OS-5




Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
A. Methodology
This handbook is a synthesis of some of the things we have learned over more than a quarter of a century in working with technical assistance projects in research and extension. The syntesizing methodology is simple. A draft is prepared, reviewed by experienced persons, revised, circulated for use (tested) and then reviewed and revised again. Working draft #3 has resulted from one workshop review. The plan is to conduct a workshop at least once a year for a comprehensive review. In addition, reactions are being sought, actively and continuously, between the review workshops. You are invited, even urged, to let us have your reactions and comments, if you have had any experience in research and extension projects. Send them to the Farming Systems Support Project, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
32611.
B. Audience
The handbook is intended for the several groups of
personnel who are involved in donor projects--from project development through design, implementation, and evaluation. These audiences include donor personnel, both those involved in program and project review as well as those responsible for project development and implementation. Others who will work on a project include design, implementation, and evaluation teams, all of which will include members with varying levels of experience in technical assistance and work with international donors. Each chapter is more relevant to one group than to others, but every group will have some interest in what is being said for others, and is encouraged to become familiar with other chapters.
The handbook is oriented to the donor project and donor
personnel and contractors, both long and short term. However, it is held explicitly and strongly that the project, in turn, must be oriented to and must serve the needs and interests of the Host Institution and Host Country. It is assumed that one objective of all projects will be to help the Host Country strengthen its research and* extension institutions. The need for institutional development is a continuing theme throughout the handbook, which in effect assumes a project-oriented approach to Host Institution development.




C. Donor Processes
Donor assistance takes many forms, one of which is the
bilateral project, to which this handbook is oriented. Some of
these projects are financed by loan, others by grant. In some
cases the donor contracts with the implementer. In others, funds
are made available to the host country, who then contracts for
technical assistance. Project processes vary also, but some
general activities are common. This handbook is directed to the
common elements.
These stages are commonly found in the life of a project,
even though the form will vary.
1. The donor will have a country strategy. Some may
not be written, but others may be a comprehensive document
based on extensive analysis.
2. Project development is the stage in which the
donor decides in general terms what the project is and how
much will be invested in it.
3. Project design determines the size of the project,
the activities to be financed, the composition of the
budget, the course of action, the amount and nature of
technical assistance and other such matters, often
in considerable detail. It is common to contract a short term team to help with this effort and to do studies that
lead to it. Donors vary in their own direct input into project design but do assume final responsibility. The
design is the official document of the donor's formal
approval process.
4. Implementation almost always involves a team to
provide technical assistance. Donors vary in how much they
participate in this phase and how much they depend on the implementer for project management. The relative role of
technical assistance in a project also varies. Typically a
loan financed project will have less technical assistance
than a grant financed project.
5. Evaluation is not really a phase, since it often
occurs more than once in a project and is anticipated as
early as project design. Good management provides for
constant attention to evaluation. However, the specific
evaluation activities occur after the other phases.
D. Handbook Organization and Use
I This handbook is organized around the general project
process. After a chapter on Principles of FSR/E, there are four
chapters, corresponding to the four phases in the life of a
project listed above--development, design, implementation, and
evaluation. Material that is common to more than one chapter is contained in the Appendixes. A final section provides a list of
1-2




literature references. This section also is under development, and if you have suggestions for material to be included, please let us hear about it. There are alternatives for organization of the book, if you have a preference, please let FSSP hear.
Each chapter is oriented to a specific situation and is specifically relevant to a team or group. Other chapters are relevant. The book is cumulative, in the sense that a team working on any one phase is expected to be familiar with those chapters dealing with earlier phases. In some cases and for some purposes, teams will need to be familiar with the chapters on succeeding phases.
E. Farming Systems Research and Extension (FSR/E)
FSR/E is a term used widely and with many meanings, all legitimate. In order that all the different usages can be accomodated, this book does not apply a strict definition of FSR/E. There are two basic criteria for FSR/E, which can be considered as minimum criteria. One is that the problems that research and extension work on, and the technology they deal with, are selected on an adequate base of knowledge and understanding of the relevant systems of farming. The second is that technology innovations proposed are tested (a) in the farming system(s) in which they are expected to perform and
(b) by criteria of those systems.
All countries, no matter how severe their resource
constraints, can adopt the FSR/E approach, using this simplified concept. At the same time, countries can add such criteria as the multi-disciplinary approach and wholistic approach to the extent their resources allow.
A central theme of this handbook is that FSR/E is an
integral part of the general R/E process. This means that until FSR/E is worked into the R/E process, that process is incomplete and inadequate. It also means that FSR/E is not a substitute or replacement for other components of the R/E process. This explains why this handbook is really oriented to research and extension, not simply FSR/E. Since FSR/E is integral to research and extension, and since research and extension are incomplete without FSR/E, there is no logical way to deal with FSR/E out of the R/E context. There is also no logical way to deal with R/E that does not embody the FSR/E characteristics. Some workers in fact, hold FSR/E to mean the total R/E process conditioned by the FSR/E approach.
F. The Farming System
The farming system also is not strictly defined. "System" is a tricky concept. There all sorts of systems and sub-systems surrounding a farm and the farm family. A user must define the system for the specific task at hand, and FSR/E workers have defined a wide range of systems.
1-3




The "system" assumed most frequently in this book is the agricultural production system, but the approaches assumed will accomodate other systems as varied as the farm household and the world market. Part of "understanding the relevant farming system" is understanding how the other systems influence it.
Likewise, the concept of "farm" is not restrictive. It can be a simple family owned and operated farm, a tenant farm, a farm with several households, a farm that depends on private plots and communal lands, even a plantation. No matter what the "system of farming," it is necessary that research and extension workers understand it.
G. Emphasis on Models
Great emphasis is placed on models throughout this book.
A model has two purposes. It helps to think through a problem or process, and it greatly facilitates communication among all the many actors from varied backgrounds who-.are involved in technology innovation and in donor projects that support it. Technology innovation is a social process, not readily observable, and not well understood. Organizing and managing agencies to achieve innovation is even less so. Each of the many actors and groups of actors involved will have her/his own concepts based on experiences. A model helps to achieve some commonality of concepts.
This book makes heavy use of the Technology Innovation Process model and derivations of it. It serves to provide a common starting place for the many actors. It has been used and. modified to fit particular needs and situations. Use of the TIP model does not -indicate any particular defense for it as much as it does encourage the use of models. If you do modify the TIP or develop your own model that proves useful, please share it with the FSSP.
H. Review Panel
Experiences that fed into this draft came from too many
sources to acknowledge. Working Draft #2 was formally reviewed in a workshop in January 1985. No approval was requested from the workshop participants, and the 're is no implication that this draft was formally approved. Many review notes and comments have entered this draft. However, all responsibility for synthesizing the range of experience rests with FSSP.
Participants in the January 1985 workshop were: Jay Artis, Michigan State University; Earl Kellogg and J. B. Claar, University of Illinois; Robert Tripp, CIMMYT; Robert Hart, Winrock International; Richard Harwood, IADS; Donald Voth, University of Arkansas; Eugenio Martinez and Loy Crowder, Rockefeller Foundation/University of Florida; Robert Waugh and James Meiman, Colorado State University; and Dan Galt, Jim Jones, Ken McDermott, Susan Poats, and Chris Andrew of the Farming System Support Project.
1-4




CHAPTER II
OPERATIONAL PRINCIPLES:
Farming Systems Research and Extension
This handbook is founded on a set of principles that
provide a common basis for all project activities. Some of them can be considered assumptions, others represent basic truisms, while still others are conceptual models that help in understanding and managing the process.
Farming Systems Research and Extension (FSR/E) can be thought of as "applied, farmer-oriented agro-biological and physical research supported by socio-economic sciences in a team effort which is integrated with extension functions and personnel, with the product being technology and the client being the farmer, and taking into consideration the ecology and macroenvironment."
These principles can be identified. They are listed here and will be elaborated in the following pages.
1. FSR/E must deal with technology from the farmer's
perspective.
2.' Farmer involvement is essential in FSR/E.
3. FSR/E is a problem-solving approach.
4. FSR/E is an essential component of the Technology
Innovative Process (TIP), and much of its value
lies in conditioning that process.
5. The Research-Extension System is but one system
in a set of systems, and the other systems
influence the impact of FSR/E interventions.
The macro-environment is made up largely of the
other systems.
6. Even though the project is the means by which
access is gained to LDC technology problems, the
major goal is to help the Host Country improve its set of national institutions working with research
and extension.
'I-1




A. The Farmer's Perspective
Farmers are the essential actors in agricultural
development. They are the ones who will increase production, safeguard the nation's agricultural resources, and improve the levels of living. The central purpose of the RIE System, as it is of all other government programs in all countries, is to support the farmers in their critical role.
Since farmers operate under the constraints imposed by the ecology and the macro-environment, national goals and policy objectives need to be translated into farmer goals. Constraints under which they operate are so overwhelming, so powerful, that farmers cannot react to national goals that are inconsistent with those constraints. In most cases national goals can be translated into farmer goals and can accomodate farmer constraints.
FSR/E provides methodologies for understanding the farmer's constraints and how he deals with them. This understanding, in turn, leads to improving research which provides technology more relevant to needs. While there is variation in FSR/E methodologies, they all involve knowing and understanding the farmer and testing technology in the farming system by criteria of that system. FSR/E also requires a- rapport with the farmer, based not only on empathy and appreciation of constraints, but also on respect for farmer knowledge and ability as a manager and on an interest in the farm family welfare. Experience to date indicates that FSR/E is an effective instrument for building empathy, respect, and interest--and for improving morale of RIE personnel.
The importance of the farmer perspective leads to an explicit meaning of the term "innovation" in this handbook. Innovation is defined as farmer utilization on a significant scale.-The simple existence of an improved technology does not constitute innovation, and the technology innovation process is not complete until there is significant utilization.
The farming system is a production system. It is also a social system which exists in a larger political-geographiceconomic-cultural system. No national R/E System has the capacity to address all system aspects of a farming system. It is essential, however, (1) to be able to identify some few critical interactions with which the farmer must deal and (2) to obey certain constraints imposed by the market, infrastructure, national policy, and culture.
R/E cannot deal with all problems of all farmers. It
will have to make a conscious choice of clientele, of commodity or problem, and of geographic area. FSR/E can provide input for the choice, but some choice criteria are outside FSR/E.
H1-2




B. Farmer Participation
Since farmers, as producers and farming systems managers,
are the key elements in national production, it is important that they participate *in the R/E process. Farmers can be thought of as firm managers and the R/E system as a multi-firm R&D department. Farmers are, of course, the major participants in adoption, and the earlier in the innovaion process they can begin to particpate, the more effective the process will be.
There is a wide variety of channels for farmer involvement. These include interviews and surveys; on-farm trials in which farmers take an active role in implementation; discussion with farmers on trials to conduct and on trial performance; researcher observation of farming operations; participation of farmers in interpreting results of on-farm trials; participation of farmers in designing extension demonstrations and interpreting them, and others.
Farmers can be involved as members of research and
extension committees and can take part in formal research and extension planning. and there has been successful experience with farmer participation in formal research planning and analysis. However, they do not have to be formally integrated into the process in order to be "involved." They do have to have input into these activities, and FSR/E provides for a systemmatic way of getting the input. Seeking farmer input and dealing with it helps achieve rapport with the farmer.
Farmers are experimental by nature, and in a group of
farmers there are almost always some who are searching on their. own for better technology. Farmers seldom adopt a new technology on the word of R/E personnel. They almost.always either try it out in their own systems or observe it's performance in a similar system. One the strength of the extension demonstration is that it facilitates the farmer's own experimental process. FSR/E builds on this experimental nature of farmers to get farmer involvement. Farmers will be involved, either on their own or in collaboration with research and extension personnel. FSR/E achieves the collaboration.
While farmers are involved as individuals, it is important to think of them as representatives of key farming systems. The, economics of R/E require a considerable degree of similarity among key farming system characteristics so that an improved technology can be applied to a relatively large production area.
"--3




C.Problem-Solving Approach
FSR/E is based on the standard problem-solving method, which consists of five steps.
1. Problem is identified, or an opportunity is
identified, based on a thorough knowledge of
predominant farming systems and of relevant
technology.
2. Alternative possible solutions are formulated or
developed if you are working from a problem that
has been identified.
3. These alternatives are tested. If a probable
opportunity has been identified, that technology
is also tested.
Farmer orientation and involvement plays a key
role in this st~p. Some screening can be done on
the experient staton, but testing must eventually
be done in the farming system for which the
innovation is intended and by criteria of the
system.
4. The technology is modified (adapted) to
the needs of the client farming system, based on
results of on-farm trials.
5. Acceptable solution is disseminated.
Dissemination is literally an extension of the
R and D process. As the technology becomes nearly
finished, the on-farm test becomes almost a
demonstration. Further, FSR/E requires continual
feedback from the farmer and extension on the
performance of a tested technology, such that the
extension demonstration is something of a test.
The research function of the technology innovation process blends into the extension function to such
such an extent that they cannot be distinguished.
FSR/E is iterative. If a technology does not pass the
test, other alternatives are sought for testing. If problems show up in dissemination, they are referred back to an earlier step in the technology innovation process.
FSR/E requires the participation of as many disciplines as the R/E System can afford. Where resources are limited, personnel training can be less specialized to gain some interdisciplinary benefits. FSR/E experience itself can also train personnel to handle a broader range of problems.
I-4




D. The Technology Innovation Process
FSR/E is commonly associated with field teams who concentrate on on-farm testing, adaptive research, and integration of technology into farming systems. The FSR/E potential can be greatly enhanced by fitting it into the total technology innovation process (TIP) and by relating it closely to the other functions serving that same process. FSR/E can literally condition the entire process.
The TIP is presented in some detail in Apendix A. The
model shows the process as a linear process, from left to right. In practice, however, the process has feedback loops, and it can start with a problem or an opportunity which can be identified in any one of the functions.
Technology Innovation Process
World Tech Tech Tech Tech Tech Diffuse
Stock Science Genera Testng Adapt Ntegra Disemna & Knoldg tion ation tion tion Adopt
FSR/E concentrates on the functions of testing,
adaptation, integration, and dissemination. Research operates on the left end of the TIP and can easily stop, and often does, before the technology is "finished." Extension, operating on the right, often starts its activities too late. FSR/E fills the gap, and both the research entity and the extension entity have a genuine self-interest and even a responsibilty to work in this area, each serving its own purpose
FSR/E sends messages to the left for the kind of technology farmers need generated. If the national system can not respond, very often the international system can. At the same time FSR/E "finishes" the technology for the right end of the continuum and familiarizes extension with it.
FSR/E facilitates the establishment of research and
extension linkages. Some experts maintain that it is not FSR/E if it does not. This results from the similarity between the onfarm testing and adaptation methodology of research and the demonstration methodology of extension; from the experimental nature of the farmer; from linkages FSR/E helps build with the farmer; from the farm-tested, "finished" technology that research makes available to extension; and from the fact both are working in the same process for the same end.
Countries can depend heavily on imported technology.
They must have a basic national capacity, however, in order to be able to import technology effectively. The ability to test technology and to make minor modifications is part of that basic capacity. Another part is the ability to know what to import. The international network cannot provide these services.
11-5




E. The Macro-Environment
The technology innovation system is but one system serving the larger purpose of agricultural development, and performance of the "other systems has a great influence on the potential impacts of Research and Extension interventions.
Three "other" systems are of particlar relevance.
1. The policy structure is one. Among the relevant policy issues are price ceilings and supports, exchange rates, importexport policies, land tenure, and Researth and Extension investment.
2. The commercial system is another. There must be a demand for the farmer's product and facilities and institutions to handle it. On the other hand certain vital inputs in which much of technology is embodied must be available.
3. The third is the infrastructure system, internal
transportation, plu *s irrigation, ports, processing and storage facilities, and others. The effectiveness of research and extension is considerably reduced beyond the area served by a minimum infrastructure.
While of extreme importance to FSR/E, the potential of
FSRIE managers in correcting defects in these systems is limited. Donors in "extra-project" activity have some potential.
Here are some actions FSR/E management can take.
1. It must concern itself with policies regarding investment in research and extension.
2. It can communicate with other systems regarding farmer needs. The need for inputs involved in technology adoption can be communicated to the market, as can needs for certain imports.
3. Knowledge and understanding of the farmer can be communicated. If national production goals are to be met, they must be translatable, and translated, into farmer goals, and they must accomodate farmer constraints. FSR/E can help with this task.
4. Knowledge of opportunities made possible by
technology innovation can be communicated and explained. New technology often creates policy options as well as production options.
5. Where nothing can be done to correct defects, R/E strategy must adapt to the macro-environment, both in the short and long run.
11-6




F. Institutionalization and Management
Institutionalization is a long time, continuous process,
extending well beyond the duration of most donor projects. FSR/E needs to be institutionalized as part of and along with the total RIE institutional complex. It must be made integral to the processes of current institutions, which themselves are often not developed adequately to serve the needs of agricultural development. Improving research and extension institutions is one of the major needs of almost all countries receiving donor assistance. Their agricultural development will be limited by the capacity of their national institutions, of which research and extension are critical. Thus, institutional development is a major donor opportunity.
The concept of institution has several critical elements. An institution must be valued by the Society. It must have an influence on individual behavior and on a scale that is significant to the economy. It must inspire confidence that it will endure so that individuals can plan on it.
These elements impose some requirements of institutionalization.
1. The organizations must have an effective program, in order to be "valued" by the Society.
2.. The program must achieve a scope of operation that will make a significant impact on the Economy.
3. The program must achieve a reasonable degree of
stability. Stability is not to be confused with either rigidity or stagnation, since an institution must also be capable of evolving to meet changing needs.
Meeting these requirements is the responsibility of the directors of the research and extension entities. It is a management or leadership function more than it is a function of agricultural technology or FSR/E methodology. A donor project can help directly in developing an effective program, the first requirement, even though more than technology and methodology is involved.
It is not so clear cut, but donor projects can also be effective in helping institutional directors with the other requirements of institutionalization. This issue is too complex for this section and is discussed in Appendix E.
11-7




CHAPTER III
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
Purpose of this chapter is to present considerations for use by donors who are developing projects in agricultural research and extension (R/E).
A. R/E in Country Strategy
1. A publicly supported R/E program serves the specific purpose of providing of providing technology by which more product can be produced with the same resources or the same product can be produced with less resource use, at the same time protecting the nation's natural resources.
2. Economic analysis is not necessary to justify an R/E
project. Much evidence indicates the potential value of research and extension. (See Appendix B.) Further, there is little evidence that development occurs in any country in any economic sector without innovation in the technology used by producers. Finally, history indicates that technology innovation is not likely in agriculture without a publicly supported R/E'effort.
The economic issue, then, is to develop, design, and implement a project that will help the Host Country realize the economic potential of research and extension.
3. Virtually every LDC has an overwhelming need for
assistance in developing its own basic national capacity in research and extension, a long-lasting, indigenous capacity to deal with the technology problems of agriculture. This includes the capacity to take charge of and manage the national R/E program, including those components financed by donors. This basic capacity can be modest, well within the ability of most countries to afford it, with proper planning and implementation.
4. Other institutional capacities are needed to./deal with policy, markets, and infrastructure. Inadequacies in/those systems will limit what can be expected from improvements in the R/E System. It is not necessary, however, to delay development of the R/E system until other institutional systems are adequate. Several institutional systems can be under developmen t at the same time.
5. The potential of a project can be enhanced by extraproject activities. Two will be most helpful.
I!I-I




a. One is to include R/E issues in the continuing
policy dialogue with host government, particularly investment in research and extension and institutional development. No matter how effective are the Host Institution and the implementing team in addressing these issues, the donor can make them more effective.
b. The second is to seek collaboration of other
donors to help protect the basic national capacity that you are helping to build. Many donor projects press on national capacity and tend to dissipate it, rather than build it.
B. Identify and Defend Host Country Interests
Donors must work through projects which must obey certain specific criteria. It is not automatic that these criteria will be consistent with Host Country interests. A donor project can actually work at cross-purposes to genuine, long-term country interests. Although specifics vary, some general statements can be made.
1. A major national interest is to have an indigenous capacity to develop, maintain, and manage an effective technology program. This institutional need represents a major donor opportunity, an opportunity far greater than that offered by projects designed for short-run specific production goals. A mix of donor projects, each-following its own criteria, is piece meal and tends to press on fragile Host Country capacity and fragment it, rather than to help build it. Thus, the effectiveness of investments in research and extension are reduced', and they could actually work against Host Country interests.
This handbook assumes that donor projects have a
specific interest in the development and strengthening of Host County capacity.
2. Host Countries do need help in developing their basic national capacity, and most projects can provide it, even if there are short-term, direct action objectives involved.
Capacity building is essentially a function of
management. Management components can be included in projects at relatively, little cost. Capital costs, except for training or human resource development, are minimal. Technical assistance is most needed and can be provided by short term/~personnel.
For example, one of the great needs 'of RIE
institutions is for strategic planning, which needs to be done by Host Institution management and personnel and over considerable time. This component could be designed into a project at little cost, to take place over the life of the project, and the results would be far more useful than plans done in a matter of weeks with exceptionally heavy pa rticipation of an expatriate team.
111-2




C. Conceptualize and Strategize
1. Your project needs to be developed from a *set of
concepts that will help you and colleagues understand it and help explain it to others, particularly personnel that will review the project from design through evaluation. A model of the total technology innovation process is presented in Appendix A. You can use it, modify it, or develop one of your own. Experience shows, however, that if some sort of model is used both communication and analysis are improved.
2. The technology innovation process is a single process. Yet in most countries, two autonomous entities, research and extension, are responsible for its functions. Linkage between the two are and always have been inadequate. Two measures would increase the chance of developing this linkage.
a. Farming Systems Research. deals with those
functions of the technology innovation process that commonly have fallen between research and extension responsibilities and thus have been neglected. Attending to those functions appears to improve significantly the chances for effective linkage.
b. It seems probable that single donor projects that deal with both the research and the extension entities would further facilitate this linkage.
Figure III-1, derived from the'technology innovation process model, will give some insights into the relevant relationships. Design considerations are discussed in the next chapter. Original project development, however, has to accomodate these ideas.
3. It is important to keep the project within the country's resource potential. Most countries have severe resource constraints. It is feasible to develop a productive R/E system within those constraints if certain guidelines are followed. It is necessary that all of the functions of the technology process model are attended. This can be accomplished, even with a modest R/E system.
One economy measure is to depend specifically on the international technology network, which is quite good and is steadily improving. That network can provide all of the science and much of the technology generation needed. Importing of technology needs to be systemmatic. See Chapter IV.
Another economy measure is to limit the scope of the program, by commodity, by problem, area and by geographic area. There are always enough resources to do something well, never enough to do everything well.
111-3




Fig. III-la. Activity Assignments between Research and Extension,
By Functions of the Technology Innovation Process
Technology Innovation Process World Tech
Stock Science Tech Tech Tech Tech Tech Dfusn
Knoldg Genratn Testng Adapttn Nttgratn Dsmnatn Adoptn
I I I I I I
\ Area-Specific /
E Subject Matter \ Research / /
f Research \ / Technical/
f L\ /iaison & / Field
o / Support Extension
r /
tE / / T
Units to which Assigned
Fig. Ill-lb. Activity Assignments between Research and Extension,
By Functions of the Technology Innovation Process.
Technology Innovation Process World
Stock Science Tech Tech Tech Tech Tech Dfusn
Knoldq_ Research Genratn Testng Adapttn Ntgratn Dsmnatn Adoctn
I II II
aR X
c
t
i
V
i
t
yE T
Unit Receiving Assignment
111-4




Think in terms of basic national capacity, and the need to define it or determine it for a specific country. More on this below. Basic national capacity depends on the ccountry. It seems to be a common tendency to attemp to create a complete R/E system for a country, no matter what the resource base. Such is not possible for many countries. Nor is it-necessary. Countries can depend on the international network for many functions and can do so indefinitely. This dependence needs to be accomodated in the strategy, however. If not managed, it will not be systemmatic and effective.
A useful analytical device is the technology transfer model developed by Hyami and Ruttan in Agricultural Development: An International Perspective.
D. Early Impact--Visibility
It is conventional wisdom that developing a research
program and a research institution is a long run task. If donors and governments are impatient, they will not sustain an efffort long enough for it to catch root and survive. Impatience, in other words, precludes success.
No evidence challenges this proposition. However, it is not completely accurate, at least in implication. The long run view of institutional development does-not preclude the need and possibility of achieving an early impact. An institution is more akin to a muscle, which is developed by practice and exercise, than it is to a factory which is built in one time period to be used in a subsequent period. A research institution is built by doing what a research program is supposed to do in support of agricultural development.
With proper planning and management, research can have a short term impact that actually improves its long time efforts rather than diverting resources from them. An early impact can be used to gain respect for the research entity in the government and to encourage its own personnel, both of which are important components of institution building.
Early impact will often require technology from the
international technology network as well as personnel. The process is an adaptation of the FSR/E process. The first step is to characterize an area--its ecology, its farming systems, and it problems and resources. The next step is to determine which of known technologies would have the highest probability of fitting needs and giving a payoff. That technology is then tested, adaptations are made, in the FSR/E on-farm research mode. When it passes this test, it is promoted in a small area. If it passes that test it goes on to a full-fledged campaign.
Production programs are usually associated with extension, with inadequate attention being given to thorough and adequate testing and needed adaptation. Extension can not perform well with inadequately tested technology.
J II-5




The design differences for early impact are not very
different from conventional design. The process of knowing the farmer and doing on-farm trials are virtually the same. The difference comes from expecting production from research AND extension, not just from extension alone, and putting a reasonable presssure on research for early impact.
Expecting early impact will also mean that project sites will not be in the most difficult areas. However, that should not be a difference. Until an institution is fairly well developed with a considerable capacity, it is a doubtful strategy to expect it to perform in difficult ecological areas or in areas ill-served by infrastructure and markets.
E. Basic National Capacity
Five elements can be considered as constituting Basic National Capacity in agricultural research and extension.
1. One is the ability to know and to understand the farmer clients and their systems of farming. This does not mean all farmers in all areas and all commodities. Choices have to be made, and the choice does not have to be the smallest farmers in the most difficult areas. Choices are difficult because so much has to be left unattended. It does mean that for-the areas, problems, and commodities chosen there is a capacity to know and" understand producers--and that the choices are limited to a scope that can be adquately attended by resources available.
2. The second element is the ability to generate
technology OR the ability to import it. For the concept of basic national c apacity it makes no difference which of these abilities exist or if they exist in combination. What is significant is that farmers are offered technological opportunities, and that the national RIE system has the capacity to do this on a continuing basis. Many countries have little chance to develop a sustainable capacity to generate technology, even in a few commodities. Most countries can develop the capacity and the management system to monitor the world technology system for likely technology.
3. The third element is the ability to test the
technological alternatives IN the relevant farming systems and BY criteria of those systems. This also requires hard choices to keep the program scope within institutional resources.
4. The fourth element is the ability to inform
farmers of improved technology and to instruct them on it use. Some technology is very easy for farmers to learn and integrate into their operations, and little more is needed than to demonstrate it. Other technologies are increasingly difficult to work into the system and more instructional effort is needed. Basic capacity can begin with ability to handle the simpler technology.
111-6




5. The final element is the ability to transmit information and understanding among units of research and extension entities. Because they serve farmers, units and personnel of research and extension are dispersed over wide areas, and communication is not simple, even within each of the entities. Research and extension communication is seldom even near to adequate.
Several of these functions will be recognized as central to FSR/E, and this indicates its role in the technology innovation process. Much technology can be imported. Yet without this basic capacity, a country cannot take advantage of the technology available.
F. International Technology Transfer
Hyami and Ruttan in Agricultural Development: An
International Perspective present a model of international technology transfer and an analysis useful in RIE project development. The model was developed from historical studies and is supported with empirical data. The model recognizes three stages of technology transfer among nations.
1. Materials transfer is the simplest. Technology is often embodied in a commodity--seed, machine, or chemical. The simplest form of transfer is transfer of the commodity embodying technology. It often happens through exploration, warfare, and trade. Materials transfer requires little national capacity.
2. Design transfer requires national capacity. It involves the capacity to produce materials involved in the earlier stage. Blueprints for factories and designs of tractors can be imported, often with technical assistance. Seed can be produced, and certain technologies copied. A production capacity as well as technological capacity is required. A country often moves into this stage as it begins to develop its national capacity in research and extension.
3. Technology capacity transfer is the most complex and most difficult. This is a transfer of ability to generate new technology. It takes more than excellent training in a foreign country, according to their historical analysis of several countries, including the United States. It often requires that scientists be imported to work with well-trained national staff over extended periods.
The value of these models is to help donors and host
countries determine the level of technology transfer that is relevant, so that expectations of probable performance can be realistic. Some of the most serious mistakes are those arising out of unrealistic expectations.
111-7




G. Don't Underestimate th-e: Potential
It is common to evaluate a donor on the size of its
financial input, or resource transfer. Financial input is indeed a measure, but it is not the only measure.
The need for a steadily improving institutional capacity ranks at least equal to the need for capital and financial support in virtually every LDC. Improved institutional capacity cannot be bought with money alone. It needs direction, and it needs time. Neither of these are costly in terms of dollars, and neither is a ready made item for sale on the market.
Donors have shown a remarkable persistence in their
inability to coordinate efforts, especially in research and extension.* Yet some degree of coordination is essential if the same understaffed and underfinanced research or extension institution has to deal with many donors. It may well be that the best chance of achieving donor coordination will be to help the research and extension institutions to develop their capacities to the point at which they can effect the coordination of donor efforts and establish their direction. This is a completely feasible objective for the donor who has the will and the persistence and access to a certain level of technical competency which can be offered the Host Institution. It does not require a large capital input.
H. inkgeR/Eand ITN
This summarizes some of the material discussed above.
Inadequate research-extension linkage has been one of the most persistent of problems. The technology innovation process provides a possible explanation. Research has operated at the left end of the model and extension at the right, leaving the center inadequately attended. FSR/E has moved in to fill that gap, and in doing so may provide the key to improving linkage. If it is the key, both research and extension must be involved for the potential to be realized. That involvement can be greatly facilitated if donors will develop projects with both entities instead of just one.
Another linkage that needs specific attention is that with the International Technology Network (ITN), which is the store house for the world's agricultural technology and scientific knowledge. Most countries are relatively passive in dealing with the ITN, either taking what is offered or not. Few have an active program to search the ITN systemmatically for technology and knowledge it needs or could use with great profit. Such a program needs to be developed for many LDC's, and it will cost considerably less than the investment needed to generate technology. Such importation will not be a stopgap for most countries. It will be a standard arrangement.
111-8




I. Other Design Considerations
These considerations have been distilled from the
experience of design teams and implementation and evaluation teams who have dealt with design.
1. Do not expect the design team to initiate project
implementation. An informal survey or rapid reconnaissance made during project design or before implementation will serve little of its intended purpose in facilitating the R/E process. It is necessary for the implementing FSR/E team to participate in the process. Learning.from another's rapid survey is not usually adequate.
On the other hand, it is reasonable to expect that the design effort lead to an improved understanding between donor and the host country on the nature and requirements of the technology innovation process and the way that the project will help meet some of those requirements.
2. Do not rely very heavily on negotiation to solve some fundamental problems, such as memoranda of understanding to achieve research and extension linkage or pre-project agreement to provide,-national financial support. Until there is a solid product or process that justifies research-extension linkage, it will not happen. The project should address this issue and solve it over time.
3. Be careful that you do not facilitate project management at the cost of impeding institutional development and linkages. A project management unit. outside the Host Institution management framework eliminates an-opportunity to address basic management problems and denies *the institution an experience. Institutional management can well be addressed in the project.
4. Secunding extension personnel to research facilitates project management, but it leaves the extension entity outside the process and gives it no chance to learn along with research. Design the project so that extension is involved and can demonstrate to itself its own interest in linking with research.
Coordinating committees or special coordinating units are
seldom very effective. Linkage will come when linkage activities
(a) serve the self-interests of both parties to the linkage and
(b) they are provided for in position description and personnel evaluation criteria.
5. Allow plenty of time for project design.
The time provided for most project design is adequate for the work to be done, but it often is not adequate for developing a working concensus among the donor, the Host Institution, and the design team. This is especially important in collaborative mode projects. Here are some considerations.
111-9




Select your design team contractor well ahead of time and arrange for for the team leader to visit the country at least a month ahead of the team's scheduled arrival.
The team leader on this trip should be expected to accomplish these ends.
a. He should understand what the donor wants. The donor may need to use his counsel to help make some final decisions regarding the project.
b. He should do or initiate an institutional analysis of the Host Institutions. This would include a dialogue with the Host Government and Host Institutions on the nature and scope of the project and its role in helping achieve their needs and aspirations.
c. He should do a tentative plan of work for accomplishing the project design, including an outline of the document needed by the donor.
d. He can do other analyses needed for the project.
Bringing the team leader in ahead of time would add little to the cost if he could do some studies and analyses that would have to be done anyway. It would cost time, in the sense that the donor would have to plan well ahead, but both time and money would be saved in the improved product. resulting from the improved communication.
If there is need for studies and analyses to be done before the design team begins its work, you can improve the effectiveness of the design if you can use design team mem;bers for the studies and analyses, whether the team leader or not.
6. Anticipate evaluation in design stage.
Expect more than merely a schedule of evaluations in the evaluation plan. Some guidelines are suggested in Chapter IV.
Some experience suggests that it would be helpful to have some continuity between the design team and the evaluation teams and on the evaluation teams. This would consist of a design team member being on subsequent evaluation teams. It could also be handled by arranging for the same team to do all evaluations, or at least the same contractor.
III-10




CHAPTER IV
The DESIGN of
Research and Extension Projects
A Introduction
This chapter is intended for the team responsible for working on project design. However, it is derived from an analysis of the interests and needs of the host institution and can be used as a basis of discussion among the team, the donor, and the host institution.
These guidelines address both research and extension (R/E) and consider technology innovation as a single process, even though in most cases two entities share responsibility for implementing it. Orient your work to the single process.
In R/E project design you do not deal directly with
agricultural production technology. You deal with organization and management with the aim of improving the host country's ability to deal with agricultural technology.
B. Technical Dein Considerations
1. Base your design on a set of models that are
consistent with each other. Models will help explain the way you view the phenomena with which 'you are dealing. They will help test your ideas and suggest new ones, and they will provide a common orientation for all of the personnel who are to be involved in the project. That common orientation will greatly facilitate communication among the various groups with diverse backgrounds who will work on the project during its lifetime.
This set of guidelines is based largely on the
Technology Innovation Process (TIP) Model and derivatives from it. It is explained in Appendix A and summarized in various places. You can use the Model, modify it, or develop one of your own, As you develop and use models, please report your experience to FSSP.
(a) The TIP Model provides a firm conceptual base for FSR/E. It also places FSRIE in context and shows both its potential value to the technology innovation process and its limitation if viewed outside that process. FSR/E addresses the functions of integration (knowing and understanding farmers and their farming systms), testing (in the farming systems by criteria of those systems), and adaptation (to improve the fit of the technology for the system and for similar systems.
I V-i




These are essential functions of the technology innovation process. They enable research to select problems of most relevance to farmers and to search for innovations most likely to fit. These fuctions serve to "finish" the innovation so that extension can be presented with farmer-ready technology. They treat a segment of the technology innovation process in which research and extension both have an essential interest. This fact improves the chances for research-extension linkage.
At the same time, the Model shows the inadequacies of these functions if they are not linked to a technology generating function (or source of technology) on the one hand and to a dissemination function on the other. While they are essential, the FSR/E functions are not sufficient in themselves.
(b) It can be inferred from the TIP Model that a country
can rely heavily on international sources of technology, but from the testing function onward, a country must have its own capacity. The international technology network cannot provide them. They are components of Basic National Capacity.
(c). Reconcile the organization of the R/E System with the technology innovation process, using the TIP Model. Use Figure IV to help (i) to determine a feasible assignment of responsibilites to the extension and research entities, (ii) to reflect those assignments in the organization of research and extension, and (iii) to relate the the two organizations so that the integrity of the technology innovation process is maintained.Think of the rectangle REXT as the total combined R/E effort. However, the area shown for each sub-unit does not measure its importance relative to the total effort because equal width is used for the functions. This illustrates an important inadequacy af a model such as this. While it is useful for conceptualization, it value for analysis is limited. Indeed if pressed too far as an analytical device, the model may actually do more mischief than good.
You will need to experiment with your own lines. The Figure will help you to understand that:
+ The functions of the technology innovation process
must be translated into job assignments,
+ That each job assignment has to be assigned to an
administrative entity,
+ That the jobs must be related to each other within
each of the entities, and
+ That the activities of the two entities must be
related in such way that the technology innovation process
can be implemented.
I V-2




Only one gui deline is critical. The lines showing task
assignments and organizational responsibilities must slant across the technology innovation functions. Joint participation in a function will greatly facilitate research and extension linkage. "Joint participation" does not mean "duplication of activities." There are various activities and roles involved in any of the functions, and some of them are best suited to research, others to extension.
The model and this line drawing exercise could serve as a topic for a seminar that involved both research and extension management. Such a meeting would help achieve concensus on project objectives. It would tend to emphasize technical and management considerations, real live problems, and it would facilitate participation of host country personnel. Research and extension management have to draw these lines.
Use Fig. IV-lb to draw lines that seem appropriate for your country. The following discussion may be helpful.
2. Understand the functional assignments needed.
The functions of the TIP model must be translated into
activities, assigned to specific units of the R/E entities, and reflected in job descriptions. Four essential,' activity assignments are identified. Some of them can vary c .onsiderably in scope and intensity. Some can be combined and assigned to one unit. In no case, however, can the functional assignments be neglected.
Four activity assignments are identified:
Area-specific Research
National Subject Matter Research
Technical Liaison and Support
Field Extension
a. Area-specific Research
Area-specific research responsibilities are:
+To know and understand the farmer and his production
system or systems;
+To report problems and constraints and explain them
to national subject matter research;
+To test promising technologies in the farming
systems;
+To modify or help modify the technology to improve its fit in the farming system and adapt it to other
farming systems; and
IV-3




Fig. IV-la. Activity Assignments between Research and Extension, By Functions of the Technology Innovation Process
Technology Innovation Process World Tech
Stock Science Tech Tech Tech Tech Tech Dfusn
Knoldg Genratn Testng Adapttn Ntgratn Dsmnatn Adoptn
I I I
%R \ X
\ Area-Specific /
E Subject Matter \ Research / /
f Research \ / Technical/
f \ / Liaison & / Field
o / Support Extension
r /
tE / / T
Units to which Assigned
Fig. III-lb. Activity Assignments between Research and Extension, By Functions of the Technology Innovation Process.
Technology Innovation Process
Stock Science Tech Tech Tech Tech Tech Dfusn
Knoldq Research Genratn Testng Adapttn Ntgratn Dsmnatn Adoptn
a R I I
aR X
c
t
i
V
i
t
yE T
Unit Receiving Assignment
IV4




+To collaborate with extension and others who can help disseminate the tested, improved technology.
Area-specific research is often done by teams under a
variety of names. These teams are key actors in identifying the factors limiting agricultural production and in putting the finish on technology. Much of their potential depends on how effective they can be in "conditioning" other elements in the national R/E System and even the international technology network (ITN). They must be related with the suppliers of technological alternatives and with those who can deliver their product.
Area-specific research deals in a range of commodities and problem areas, but its program orientation is geographic area and the farming systems of that area. It is responsible for the integrity of the research program by area needs and farming system criteria.
b. National Subject Matter Research
National subject matter research has two responsibilities.
+To support area-specific research, responding to problems and questions, dealing with both subject matter and research methodology. It is the first recourse of area-specific research personnel, its
primary client.
+To provide new technological alternatives to area
research teams and farmers, that is. to provide technical leadership, to come up with something
beyond what area personnel are requesting--either by
generating new technology or by importing it.
National subject matter research has country wide
responsibility to maintain the subject matter integrity of the research program. Its personnel needs to be specialized by subject matter.
National subject matter research efforts can vary greatly in size. They can be substantial and assume responsibility for technology generation, i.e. generate the technological alterna tives they offer the field teams. Or they can be very small, perhaps only one person, and work with the ITN to supply technological alternatives. Or they can be anywhere in between.
Size will be a function of the country's resources and its strategy in research development. Even in any one country, some programs could be small and others large. No matter what the scope of the program's work in generating its own new technology, it must still be responsible for keeping up with technology developments in the ITN. No country can afford not to keep in touch with the international technology network.
IV-5




c. Technical Liaison and Support
This activity assignment is not found in many LDC R/E
Systems, and this lack is one explanation for extension's limited effectiveness. The assignments, activities, and responsibilities associated with it are not well understood. There must be some mechanism by which the field extension agent can be linked effectively with sources of technology. If the link is not present, agents are not de facto part of the System and must supply the technology from their own resources. This has never proven a viable alternative.
There are several options for providing this linkage. The research entity can provide it, extension can provide it, or they can share it. Technical-liaison and support has three major responsibilities which it will discharge through several activities.
+One is to maintain liaison with research for the purpose of knowing About and understanding the' current best technology alternatives available and about promising alternatives that are becoming available. It must not only know about the technology, it must also have the capacity to understand the technology and to work with it.
This requires that at least half the TLS staff have formal training to the same level as area research personnel, probably the M.S. degree, and all should have'adequate short-term training.
Collaboration with the field research in testing and
adaptation is the single most effective way of keeping up with technology development. By this collaboration extension can inform itself of the technology and understand it. It can give
the technology a better test than can research without this collaboration, thus serving its own interest. Finally,.for the technology that does stand the test, the extension process is off to an early start.
Collaboration also facilitates extension participation in problem identification and problem definition and in deciding what passes the tests.
+The second responsibility of technical liaison and support personnel is to liaison with input suppliers to improve the chances that the right inputs will be available for that technology embodied in inputs. In the case of seed, this unit could recruit producers of improved varieties.
+The third responsibility is to provide technical support to field staff. The field staff, by its very posting, will quickly become isolated from the rest of the system, if the system is not energetic in keeping it integrated.
IV-6




Technical support activities include training of field agent; preparation of reference materials and training aids; trouble shooting and response to agents' requests for help. Training of field agents needs to be integral to the extension program, not an ad hoc service from other entities. Training is the principle means by which information, extension' s stock-intrade, flows through the system. Field agent training needs to be part of the program of technical liaison and support personnel and written into job descriptions.
Until we can provide better information think in terms of one TLS person for every twelve field agents, with half the TLS personnel formally trained to the same level of area research personnel and the other half with training, short-term and otherwise, well beyond that of the extension field agent.
d. field Extension
The performance of the field agent is an exceptionally good indicator of the performance of the research-extension system. With few exceptions, inadequacy in his performance is due to deficiencies in the technology innovation system, more than to deficiencies of the agent.
Agent to farmer ratio or formal training of the agent, both often. cited as major problems, are not nearly as important to agent performance as are the quality of the technological information the system makes available and the training and other technical support he gets from the rest of the research and extension system. The agent is an instrument of the system and cannot be expected to be an autonomous force in himself.
The field agent has two major responsibilities--to inform farmers of new.(to the farmer) technological alternatives and to instruct them-in how to use the technologies. He is also responsible for reporting on performance of the technology and farmer problems and needs.
We know of no rule 'of thumb for the number of field agents needed. It is clear, however, that many countries have more agents than they can support adequately, either technically or logistically. Almost all countries have a higher ratio of agents to TLS personnel than is desireable. Bryce and Evenson present some analyses that indicate LDC's tend to over invest in extension compared to research. (Bryce, James K. and Robert E. Evenson, Agricultural Research and Extension, Agricultural Development Council, 1975, pp 8-10). It will rarely be the case that more field agents can be justified. It is better to support the present ones more effectively.
3. The above discussion provides the best reasoning available to justify the need to address both research and extension in a single project. Working with both entities in a single project will provide a common orientation to both entities and will provide resources to both entities, dedicated to the




same purpose. Often linkage cannot happen because one of the entities is simply not capable of holding up its end of the linkage. The need to work with both entities was addressed in the section on project development. If the project as originally conceived does not intend to work with both entities, do what you can to get some resources and technical assistance into the other one, even if full participation of both is not feasible.
C. Management Deig Considerations
The technical aspects of R/E are sometimes the easiest to accomplish. Organization and management are more difficult, but often they are the variables that make the difference. Here are some guidelines that will increase your chance for success.
1. Personnel Training
Training is one means by which you develop the human
resource, but training may not automatically achieve the results you need.
a. The field agent needs continuous training, and that training needs to be an integral part of the extension program. That is one of the reasons that the Technical Liaison and Support Unit is so important.* It must provide technical support to the field staff, and a principal means of doing so is by training. Field agent training needs to be specific to the technology extension is promoting. Extension deals. in information, and training is one of the ways it processes and manages information.
b. TLS personnel need to be trained up to the level of the field research teams. The only alternative is for the field research teams, or some other unit of research, to assume the technical support functions, and that requires more trained personnel in research.
c. For both research and extension, you can gain some time and economies by giving U.S. quality graduate training in country. This could be given for graduate credit, which would help insure quality. You can do it in off seasons, either by bringing in professors on short term assignments or by using members of the contractor team.
d. The possibilities for self training are
significant. Both research and extension are dealing with new information, and this experience offers chances for seminars in which personnel can literally train themselves. One of the real opportunities are in meetings in which research results, including on farm trials and perhaps even demonstrations, are reported and analyzed and in which research plans are formulated. These can be seminar-style, involving both research and extension personnel and accomplish an educational function as well as an administrative-technical function.
IV -8




2. Host Institution Management
Virtually every host institution needs help with
management, and virtually every project can be made more effective if it includes some management assistance to the host institution, especially if institutional development is considered a desired end.
a. Inadequate logistic support for research and extension
is a major problem. It will be difficult to achieve, because most LDC governments are under pressure to give employment to as many people as possible, and increasing the budget (outside donor contribution) will be slow, difficult, and uncertain. Do the best you can.
Resist expanding the field extension staff, unless there is an exceptional opportunity. There are few situations in which number of field agents is a serious limiting factor. There are many in which support is. Field agent to farmer ratio has little meaning without adequate logistic and technical support.
Move research into new areas before expanding extension. If there is no source of farmer-ready technology, extension has little function.
Look to as many alternatives as you can list for expanding logistic support.
(b) A second major problem is the lack of financial
resources adequate to the function expected of the research and extension institutions.
Maintaining support fo r an organization is just as important in public administration as is developing and maintaining a good program. Many techniques have been developed over time, and many of them can be fitted to the host country and host institution situation.
Here are some alternatives that can be considered.
+ Make a record of performance and success.
Translate into monetary terms and develop skills and
program activities to inform those who hold the purse.
+ Present the research and extension program as
an investment rather than a cost.
+ Make use of "advisory councils" and name people
to them who know the system, who can legitamize the R/E
program, and who can actually help influence fund
allocators.
+ Don't overlook other donors. Donors may be a
quasi-permanent source of support in some countries.
IV-9




+ Look for private sector support. It will often
come as.a result of program activity that serves a commercial interest. This involves some risk, but
don't be overly fearful
+ Consider a permanent position in the Host
Institution with the sole responsibility of acquiring financial support. This position should be very close to top management to emphasize the fact that resource
acquisition is a major responsibility of management.
(c) Linkage with the international technology network is often inadequate, with the host institution being in a reactive mode and leaving all direction and initiative to some foreign entity. With a basic national capacity in research and extension discussed elsewhere in this handbook, the host institution is in a position to take the initiative and help set direction and scope of the collaboration with international entities. However, it needs a system and a program for doing so. Here are some ideas that can be worked into a project.
+ Develop a plan or program or system by which
host institution personnel are to maintain contact with
the international sources of technology, and assign
responsibilities to persons or positions. Make linkage
a significant part of the job description.
+ Provide subscriptions to journals and to other
relevant publications or information services.
+ Provide for travel to scientific meetings and to
research stationswhere relevant work is being done.
Travel could be as frequent as. once a year.
+ Facilitate contacts between host institution
personnel that can be maintained by mail and perhaps occasional visits. A few particularly good contacts
can be brought in as consultants for the express
purpose of establishing long time links. This-can
also include helping to maintain contact with major
professors or other professors of HI personnel.
The contractor's home office can be helpful in setting
up and maintaining contacts. Participants in degree
courses can aim at establishing these linkages.
(d) Most Host Institutions will be in great need of strategic planning. They need a long time plan that sets program direction, sets goals as to scope and program, and includes a strategy for reaching the goals. Without such a long range plan, growth is not likely to occur. If it does, it will be haphazard. If the institution does not have such a plan, then donor support will follow donor criteria because there is no national criteria.
IV-10




The project can include a codtponent to facilitate such a
plan. Such a component would not be costly to the project. Most of the work needs to be done by the host institution, but the process is fairly tedious, and some" technical assistance could be useful. It could be by short term, persons, perhaps in repeated tours, supplemented by help from the project implementation team. Strategic planning could take place over the life 'of the project. Even though long run planning is needed, many actions need to be taken in the short run.
A major issue in strategic planning is the extent to which the country will depend on international sources of technology and the nature of that dependence. This issue, in turn, is critical for the organization and operation of the system in the short run, starting today.
(e) Research-extension linkage must start with management and must be encouraged and supported by management, even though most of the work and action takes place in technical-program activities. This subject is treated in various places through this handbook and needs to be central to the project.
(f) Personnel management and development is another
important issue for institutional management, given the fact that personnel is by far the most important resource in research and extension. It is common to think of personnel problems in terms of salary, but there are other issues involved. Personnel will respond to opportunity for development and to do a good job.
Assignments are an important element in both motivation and development of personnel. The assignment, for example, to maintain contact with international sources of technology would help develop and maintain many persons at a relatively low salary.
Resources to enable a person to develop a good program would also be both a motivation and a development instrument. This emphasizes the need for an active program in resource acquisition. Often the resources needed to enable a person to work are not great, and acquiring resources in small amounts sometimes simplifies the job.
Another important element in personnel motivation and development is participation in important matters of the institution. Management can solicit participation, for example, in strategic planning as well as in managing the routine affairs of the institution.
Training is not the only element involved in personnel development. The design team needs to consider this issue as part of the project's component in management.




D. Organizational Design Considerations
No "best" organizational form for the RIE System has been identified and justified. You can feel fairly confident, however, that the assignments, discussed in Section B above, are needed to make the technology innovation process operational and that if provided they will indeed do so. The "assignments" have been derived from experience. Assignments divide up the functions and responsibilities. As a result they tend to divide the organization as well. Organization must relate the divisions so that the R/E program is de facto a single, integrated program.
Organization refers to structure, i.e. how the parts relate to each other. However, it- is important that the job description of each unit which has been assigned a responsibility provides for activities that will link that assignment effectively to assignments received by other units. Thus, job description becomes as important as the structure of the organization.
Thus, two criteria must be satisfied:
+The responsibility assignments must cover the four assignments discussed and explained in Section B. The efforts can be modest, but they must attend to the four responsibilities.
+- Job descriptions must be written so that the responsibilities are attended and so that each assignment is linked effectively with other assignments.
When you are working with organizational issues, you must have more interaction with the host institution and the host. country than is essential on design of other project elements. You also may not be able to achieve a resolution during design of organizational issues. What you can do, however, is to open up the problem, get people started to be concerned about organization and organizational alternatives, and to improve the chances that the implementation team can address them nnnnntively. Thus, design should seek to make organization a relevant issue of the project, a legitimate issue for the project to address. It should also make resources available. This kind of issue will not take many resources, but the ones that are needed may well be critical.
1. Organization Alternatives
There are several alternatives for organization and for combination of alternatives. Those listed here will be helpful in starting an analytical process that will lead to a relevant organizational form for the specific situation. Some
may fit as they are. Others will almost certainly need adaptation.
IV-12




a. One alternative is to assign each responsibility to an administrative unit or units. Thus, each subject matter program would be an administrative unit, even though small. By the same token area-specific research would be assigned to units, a team for each area.
The technical support and liaison function could be
assigned to one unit in the extension entity. It could also be assigned to several units, organized by subject matter or by geographic areas. In most cases the field extension agents are organized into units that would fit into a total system.
Size of country and thus size of the research and extension entities will be important factors in organization. In general, the simpler an organization can be the better. In small operations, for example, one unit could handle the technical liaison and support responsibility, without subdivisions. As size increases, sub-divisions will be needed.
b. Area Specific Research
On-farm research teams (FSR teams) is one way to
organize area specific research. These teams can answer directly to the research director; they can answer to a technical director who-is also responsible for subject matter research; or they could answer to an "area research deputy" who in turn answers to the director of research. In cases in which area-specific research is rather new and not well integrated into the program a deputy director could be useful in helping the research entity and the teams learn and perform this new assignment of responsibility.
An alternative to on-farm research teams is the branch
experiment station. This requires, however, (a) that the station adequately reflects the area's ecology, (b) that the researchers spend a great deal of time with farmers, and (c) that they work closely with extension.
There could be a combination of the two. Even on-farm
research teams need a headquarters. In some countries in which on-farm research is emphasized, the branch station is known as a production center rather than an experiment station. If the branch station work is emphasized, there needs, to be some on-farm work. If research personnel have trouble get ing off the station, extension through demonstration and trials may be able to serve the function of keeping close contact with farmers.
Area-specific research personnel need to be to some degree extension workers, and this needs to be reflected- in their job descriptions. Their major responsibility is ; Ito test and adapt technology, but that is so close to extension that it is difficult to tell what is research and what is extension. They need to be sensitive to farmer needs and to extension needs and above all not to worry about distinguishing research from extension.
IV-13




c. Subject Matter Research
This responsibility can be assigned to teams, if there are enough personnel to provide teams. If there is a severe resource constraint, there may be just one unit that is charged with keeping contact with international sources of technology. It would be constituted by specialists.
The subject matter research personnel are responsible for a country-wide program of research. Members of a commodity team could be stationed in several places. There needs to be communication so that there is a single, national program.
d. Relating subject matter and area-specific research.
It is just as important to link these two elements together within research as it is to link research with extension, and sometimes it is almost as difficult. There is ample experience of the two elements working together very effectively. The key has been the recognition of the service the "other" group could provide. Area-specific research, for example, can give subject matter technology a far greater test than subject matter research can. It can also identify problems of much more significance and help evaluate them and plan research. On the other hand, subject matter research is the first recourse of the area-specific teams and is area specific research's link with the world. Area-specific reserarch has limited potential without this source of technology.
Under severe resource constraints, personnel in subject matter research can be reduced with lessfharmful impact than in area-specific research. The country can rely on the world as a source of technology, but not for area-specific research. However, subject matter research has to be organized, planned, and managed to achieve this end. It doesn't happen simply by reducing personnel.
The matrix form of research organization has worked well
in some experiences. It is depicted in Figure IV-2. This shows that the subject matter people have to maintain the integrity of the subject matter program, countrywide, while accomodating the needs of area-specific research. Area-specific research is responsible that the research program serves the farmers of the area while accomodating the needs and resources of the subject matter programs. These accomodations are more fruitful and effective if there is joint effort in r viewing research results and in planning annual research programs. These joint research review and planning meetings are effective self-teaching activities.
In the experience with the matrix/, all teams answered to a technical director. It should serve as well if there were a deputy to the director for subject matter research and for area specific research.
IV-14




e. Technical liaison and support
This responsibility is vital to extension and is
perhaps the single most neglected area of work in research and extension. In very few countries is this responsibility adequately handled. There is virtually no way the field agent can perform adequately unless the TLS function is carried out well. If s/he does, s/he is acting independently of the system, as an autonomous agent, not as an agent of the system. See Appendix D for a more detailed discussion of the function.
The most effective alternative is for the extension entity to assume this role, assign persons to it, provide them the training needed for the function, charge them with effecting linkage to research, and supporting them with resources adequate to the task. With an adequate liaison and support unit, extension can effect liaison with other sources of technology, if there is more than one research entity in the country. This unit can also help with area-specific research. A fully. operative technical liaison and support unit would discharge all the functionsexpected of the verification as well as those expected of the research-extension liaison officer.
One alternative is for research to assume the role. It is in the interest of the research entity to do it, if extension does not assume, the responsibility.. It is in the interest of research to facilitate the role, even if extension assumes it. It is seldom that research can give the technical support the field agents need. If research assumes the responsibility, the best that can be hoped for is for research to promote its won wares. This will be a minimum of support to field agents and that specific to its most recent technology innovations.
If research accepts this responsibility, it often-does it
through the research-extension liaison officer. The fact that it is referred to in the singular, indicates the minimum level it implies. In fact, with a technical liaison and support unit in extension, it still may be a good idea for the research entity to have a research-extenion liaison officer. The responsibility of this officer can also be broadened to include bulletins, radio broadcasts, and other information services.
Still another alternative is the technology verification officer in extension. His function is to take the technology that research is recommending and verify it in the conditions in which extension programs are working. The extension verification trial is another form of the testing and adaptation trials of research and is a legitimate and necessary function for extension to perform. The verification label does not indicate that the support function is adequately handled.
In very small countries, area-specific research and
technical liaison and support could be consolidated into a single unit. It would be responsible'for testing and adapting technology introduced by the subject matter research and promoting it through the field agents.
iv-15




E. Evaluation Considerations
The design team has an important responsibility for
evaluations. It must do more than assert that there will be so many evaluations at certain time. Thinking through an evaluation scheme will help make the design more realistic.
1.,Suggest an evaluation prcs or plan.There are several ways in which this can be done. Here is one. You can use it or make some modification of it.
a. Describe the current situation in terms relevant to the project and make some projection of what the situation would be at the end of the project if no interventions were made.
b. Describe the desired situation at the end of the project period. If a follow on project is anticipated, describe the desired situation at the end of the follow up project and anticipate what the interim situation, at the end of the first project, would be. It will be necessary to state the value system you are using--farm income, institutional change, number of people involved, total production, organizational and management improvements.
c. Suggest an evaluation system
First, list the constraints that are going to impinge on reaching the desired situation and give some idea of their seriousness. These will include budget resources, manpower, nature of changes desired. Be as specific and analytical as time allows. Then reconsider if the desired situation is realistic in the face of these constraints.
Secondly, deal with three critical elements of evaluation design.
What are the measures you will use to guage progress and accomplishments? What will be the units you
will use to measure?
In terms of those measures and units, what are the goals or targets you are aiming for?
How will information be gathered to measure?
d. Reconsider your original "desired situation." If it seems unrealistic, make adjustments in your evaluation design.
e. Design into the project a review of the evaluation design by the implentation team and a revision. In this way the evaluation design can become a useful tool for project implementation management.
IV-16




Figure IV-2. Research Organization Matrix
!Subject Ares-Specific Research Units
!Matter __!Research !
!Units I Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 1 Area 4 Area n
;Cereals !
!Legumes I !
!Livestockl I I !
ISoils !
;Other I I !
This system of organization was developed and.used
effectively in Guatemala by ICTA. The area-specific research units are responsible for the integrity of the research program in its relevance to the most important farming system(s) of an area. They must know and understand the farming system(s) and enough of the technology so that they can help adjust the subject matter research programs to that area,
At the same time the national (or system-wide) subject matter research program leaders are responsible for the subject matter integrity of the programs. Where the lines intersect, reconciliation must take place. Of course no one is completely happy, but under proper leadership from top management, totat program integrity can be maintained.
Reconciliation takes place at annual meetings in which research results of the past year are reported and analyzed and research plans for the next year are made. Top management may have to take an active role. If meetings can be held in the area, it may help.
The national subject matter programs can think of
generating technology if national resources permit teams with this capacity. The programs can also be manned with very small teams who depend on the international network and imported technology under more severe resource constraints.
IV-17




2. Use objectives to facilitate evaluation.
Skillful use of objectives can greatly facilitate both evaluation and management. Objectives can serve as the conceptual glue that binds many project components together and coordinates activities so that a single project results. It is clear that the design team cannot set realistic objectives for the implementation team. Project design can encourage the implementation team to develop useful working objectives, and it can facilitate the development of those objectives. All of this will facilitate both management and evaluation of the project.
The design team can set some provisional or tentative
objectives and can suggest a simple format that can be used from design through implementation and evaluation. The design team can use objectives to set the parameters of the project. Finally, it can design the project so that objective setting becomes useful in the donor's monitoring and the contractor's implementation. It is common for a donor to require annual plans of work in a project. Objectives are essential to good plans, of work and can safely be emphasized.
Here is a simple format that you can use or modify. It is a simple form that can thread through the entire project, being used by the implementer and the evaluation team. If the design and'implementation team uses it, that should be a great encouragement to the evaluation team to use it.
Objectives Target Factors Factors Actions
Date Expected Expected Indicatedto Help to hinder
This form can be easily modified by the implementation team to monitor its own progress and to serve as a self-evaluation instrument.
Designers can fill out this form, both for the project and for individual components. However, design teams and others connected with the project cannot expect the design team to have enough knowledge of the operational situation to fill out the form definitively. The implementation team will have much more information than is possible for the design team. Even the implementation team will be getting new information and new understanding, and for this reason will need to keep the form under regular monitoring. The implementation team should be expected, even required, to bring it up to date regularly.
IV-18




F. Task Organization and Management
1. Introduction
This section is written for the design team and the team contracting entity. The team leader is the key actor in design, and the task should not be underestimated. Much work must be done in a short time, but more important, critical decisions have to be made, and at least three sets of actors must be involved, each with its own interest and point of view. The team leader must organize and manage the operation.
Communication is almost never adequate. Team members are often unknown to each other until meeting for the task. Many will not be familiar with the donor and its style and strategy. The country will be new to some of the team, and often there is less communication between the donor and host institution pers-onnel than is expected. The team leader must deal with all of these communication problems. He must accomplish the task. At the same time he needs to improve communication.Project design is part of a dynamic process. Don't be surprised if various donor personnel are not in complete agreement on what the donor wants to accomplish in the project. Also do not be upset. You may be expected to help develop the project concept.
2Preparation
Paper Trail
Advance *work will make the task easier and more effective. Most productive will be to discover as much of the project paper trail as you can, to gather information on the country and donor's interest and strategy in the country, and to have a briefing before leaving for the assignment. The single., most useful preparation activity would be a trip to the country by the team leader at least one month before the team' s assignment.
The project paper trail will vary with donors. The AID
paper consists of the country development strategy statement, the most recent annual budget submission, and the project identification document, progressing from the general to the specific. There frequently are other papers that you can check on. On set would relate to a current or earlier project closely related to yours. It will have generated much paper. Evaluations and most recent annual reports would be helpful. It may be easier to get them from the contractor than the donor. Check both. Another check you need to make is for studies done by the donor in connection with your project.
Two major donors, World Bank and AID have headquarters in Washington, and both of them generate paper on most countries. Very often the other donor will have project documents or country
IV-19




studies of value to you. Very often it will have personnel familiar with the country and project situation. Finally, there will be contractors of earlier projects who can help.
Briefing
Aim for a briefing before the team leaves the country. The briefing should accomplish three ends. One is to get a stateside donor view of the project along with information and analysis on the country and the donor's interest and strategy. This helps you put your project and your task in context. You will also want a mission briefing.
The second purpose to accomplish is to review some
technical considerations relevant to the task. You can use this handbook, which attempts to make available to you much of the experience of others on the same assignment.
Finally, start as soon as you can the task of team
building, i.e. consensus in the team, agreement on the task, and the specific responsibilities of each. You will likely only get it started at this point.
Team Leader Visit
Perhaps the most use preparatory activity is seldom' done under the press of time. That is to start the design activity. several months before the team is due to arrive in country. Two actions have proven helpful.
One is to appoint the team leader early and let him have 'a hand in selecting the rest of the team. It is important for the members to be ahle to work together, just as important as being individually well qualified.
The second useful action is to arrange a country visit for the team leader to help structure and prepare the task before the team arrives. The team leader could be responsible for much of the briefing with such a visit.
These two actions require resources and time. The time can be provided by more advanced planning. The resources can be justified on two counts. The product will be greatly improved, perhaps more than enough to jus.tif*y the cost. There is almost always some need for analysis and data gathering ahead of the team's arrival. This could pay for'the trip.
3.. In-Country
Donor Contact
+ Arrange for a team briefing soon after you arrive in
country to determine: Donor program and strategy; what is wanted in the project; more information and understanding of the
IV-20




country, its institutions, and the actors you are likely to be dealing with. Determine at this time just what the donor expects of your team in preparation of the document.
+Keep close contact with the donor throughout your
assignment. If feasible, have a donor representative work virtually as a team member.
Host Institution Contact
+Seek as much contact with the host institution and as much participation of host institution personnel as is feasible. If host institution personnel cannot participate, counsel with host institution as much as feasible. Under your tight work schedule, it is not likely that you will achieve optimum participation.
Whether participation or not, aim to establish team
credibility and respect in the host institution. Let them teach you as much as possible. Discuss with them the models you are using and seek a concensus with them on modifications you make, if you or they think modifications would fit your situation better. Use a few days at the beginning of the assignment to seek rapport with host institution personnel before worrying about the project design. Seek some sessions in which host institution personnel and donor personnel work with the team. One of your objectives is to establish a three-way concensus-your team, the donor, and the host institution. Any gains you can make in this area will improve chance of project success.
Team Management
+Strive for complete communication among team members. A meeting once a day, with no others present, will help you build and maintain concensus, divide up the'tasks but still maintain coordination, share information, and develope understanding. Information often cannot be taken at face value. Daily meetings of team after rapport has been established will help you evaluate information.
+After a few days of introductory work, emphasizing contact with host institution personnel, develop a tentative time schedule. You can use activity charts and a Gantt chart to show work schedule.
Aim for at leat two outputs besides the design per se. One of these is intangible. If in the project design you can help improve communication and achieve concensus on the-'project between the donor and the host institution, you will facilitate the work of the implementation team.
The second output is paper. Just as you are urged to
discover the paper trail as you start to work, you are urged to* leave a good paper trail for the implementation team and the evaluation team.
IV-21




4. An Ideal Case
One case approaches the ideal. The team leader had worked with the host institution, and he and host institution personnel knew each other. He visited the country well ahead of the design activity and after evaluating the task, helped pick the rest of the expatriate team. He and the host institution personnel planned the design activity, starting with a conceptual framework or model and providing for a workshop involving the host institution and the expatriate team. The workshop defined the project objectives and strategies, defined the institutional structure, and identified resources.
This activity did not provide a project design per se. It did provide an analysis of what the host institution needed, but in the form of components that would fit into a project design document. The co-leaders provided a document-outline, and the workshop, under forced draft, wrote the document.
During the workshop, the team leader kept close contact
with the donor, insisting on keeping him informed. There was a significant participation of the donor in the design workshop. After the workshop, the team leader worked as a consultant with the donor in completing the project design.
IV-22




G. Paper Preparation
1. Develop your own outline. You can do this independently or in collaboration with the donor. Or you can use the outline in this set of guidelines, revised as you and the donor decide is needed.
2. During the team briefing you need to do some
organization of the team and make a preliminary plan of work. The team leader is responsible and should take charge. He should also get considerable participation of the team.
3.1Make an effort to base your design on objective models and knowledge gained from research and published. Do not downplay the judgment of the team or the experience of team members. At the same time you need to show that there are sound logical and empirical bases for your design--that you are not completely dependent on the intuition, biases, and experiences of a group assembled for this task. Models will help you do this.
Some items useful in this regard are included in this package. They include.
a. The Technology Innovation Process Model
b. The Research Organization Matrix
c. The International Technology Innovation Network
See Appendix H
d. Assignment of Responsibility, Research and Extension
e. Tables on Returns to Research, Appendix B
f. The Logical Framework, Appendix C
These can be included in one or more annexes, and referred to in various places in the text.
4. Some analyses will likely still be needed in addition to that done in the process of project development or before you nrrive.Two types of needs will be important from time to time. One type is that you need to help with project design. The
other is simply to show that the project and the design is justified. Deciding on the analyses to do will require some analysis itself. Note the analyses suggested in Appendix C and get agreement with the donor on which analyses you will be expected to do. Getting some work done before your team arrives in country may be helpful, but it is necessary to get agreement on what they are and how they are to be carried out. You could end up with a lot of work and material that serves no useful purpose.
I V-23




Project Paper Outline
1. Project Paper Abstract
One page. Include costs, TA input, training output,
commodities, construction, host country input, changes
intended to be accomplished.
2. Background
a. Characterize host country agriculture and explain its
importance in the economy. (World Bank reports are useful.)
b. Describe the current status of agricultural research and extension, showing organization (with diagrams), reporting
budget and personnel, important current R/E policies, and
objectives of this project. This needs to be an analytical
task as well as simply description. (See Appendix B.)
3. Project Description
a. Summary of Goal, Purpose, and Outputs from Log Frame
b. Project Activities
Use inputs from Log Frame (See Appendix C), describe
types of TA needed, prepare job descriptions, explain
short-term consultant needs, describe training, list
commodities, and explain course of action (strategy or plan)
Show plainly how the components relate to each other.
4. Project analyses
a.Technical Analysis
Show and explain why you have chosen this course of
action or project strategy and why it is expected to work.
This may have been done as the donor selected this
alternative. Avoid cliches that have little or no meaning
to generalists who have no special knowledge or appreciation
of research or estension.
b. Economic Analysis
It is difficult to make this analysis. You have to
assume too much with regard to results to be very
convincing, if you present an analysis.
It is more useful to use another approach. Data are
available to show that research provides higher returns on
IV-24




investment than any development :alternative, when it is done riht The real issue is doing -it right. Use tables to show its economic validity and models to design the effort correctly. (See Appendix B for tables and Appendix A for models.)
There currently is some question about the cost of FSR. Make two points. FSR, if organized and managed correctly, will make the total effort more effective. An important management issue is the degree of intensity of FSR. In the final analysis, each farm is a distinct farming system. if we can find the proper degree of intensity (based on the proper degree of generalization of the findings)., FSR/E can be cost effective.
c. Social Analysis
+ Elitism. One issue is that a research project will create an elite, as you build the capability needed to do research. Face this issue squarely. Make the point that research is essential for agricultural development and that trained personnel is essential for research. Emphasize the value of investment in the human resource. You can reduce elitism by emphasizing M.S. over Ph.D., often a good idea for other reasons.
+ Beneficiaries. Personnel of the research and
extension systems will be first beneficiaries. Face it, but show that farmers will benefit (from increased production.)Show also that low-income urban consumers will benefit from mo *re food at lower prices. Finally show that with increased farm income the small rural business man will be a beneficiary, and there will be increased employment opportunities for the landless laborer. Be accurate and analytical. These are all real possibilities. Do not deal in cliches and truisms.
+ Women in Development. Be analytical in your analysis of what impact this project will have on women and family life. Resist temptation to deal with the issue as "boiler plate."
d. Administrative Analysis
Can this project be administered with reasonable ease?
Design it so it can and show that in this section. Also note the impact on management and administration of the host institutions, both while the project is in operation and after project terminates. Do not, however, make the project easy to administer at sacrifice to the host institution.
0 IV-25




5. Financial Plan
a. Summarize the Project Budget. Use narrative and table.
b. Host government contribution.
This will often be in kind. This is an administrative
requirement. It will be useful to report the total
research and extension budget of the country. Show trends.
LDC budget analysis is difficult. Do the best you can.
c. Financial Tables
Use tables to show as much project budget detail as is s
feasible.
6. Implementation Plan
This deals with the administrative aspects of initiating and
implementing the project--selecting contractor, managing
commodity input, construction management, timing, and other
administrative matters. The course of action requested in
"3" deals more with the technical or project operational
matters.
7. Evaluation Plan
The donor will have some specific needs and wishes to be
incorporated. This section should look beyond the
administrative requirement, however, to how evaluations can
improve chances for project success. The plan should be
developed as an important component of design.
8. Conditions, covenants, negotiation status
These are all donor determined and need not cause you concern.
9. Annexes
Use annexes at your convenience. It is a good idea to keep
the body of the report fairly succint. Use annexes if you
need to include very much data or discussion.
IV-26




CHAPTER V
The Implementation of
Research and Extension Projects
A. Introduction
Principal audience for this chapter is the contractor who hasassumed responsibility to implement a technical assistance project in research and extension. There may be parts of it useful to the host institution, and it may have some value in helping-the donor understand the needs and orientation of the contractor.
This chapter places more emphasis project relative to the host institution than do other chapters. The project is a critical management entity operating in an unusual environment and has important managements needs. No matter how closely the project field team identifies with the host institution or how it is deployed, the team is a unit and has needs of its own separate from any other entity. Thus, emphasis on the team is justified. However, the central orientation of this handbook, namely the interest of the host institution, still holds. The team has no, reason for being separate from the interests of the host' institution. Even though the project is the focus of this chapter, the guidelines are intended to help-project management serve the interests of the host institution, and some of the guidelines may be useful to host institution management,.
Two management entities are involved. The project includes the field team and the contractor backstop. It sometimes is easy to take the backstopping and administrative activities of the contractor for granted. However,,each project faces the contractor with a new situation, and much of its previous experience is not fully useful. As part of the project, the field team is a discrete management entity, under conditions not fully appreciated by backstop personnel and with team member interaction such that the backstop group is sometimes the "they" in a "we-they" relationship.
In spite of the project orientation of this chapter, one of the marks of a good project is that it goes beyond the, requirements of the contract in assistance and support/to the host institution. There will be guidelines on going the extra mile. i
.(See Appendix F for guidelines for team pre-departure preparation.)
(Also refer to Team Leader Manual. See AL-l.)
V-1




B. Pre-Implementation Management
There is often a considerable time gap between being awarded a contract and being able to begin implementation in earnest. If resources can be found, this time can be used to great advantage. You can start selecting participant trainees, start commodity procurement, set up the support management system, and arrange housing and make other in-country arrangements for the expatriate team. The team leader should be selected as early as feasible, and all reasonable effort needs to be made for funding that will allow him to start to work and to travel to the host country. For certain purposes other personnel also need to visit the country. Donors often have some means by which such preimplementation (or interim) activities can be authorized. Persistence in seeking authorization and funds will increase chances of project success.
C. Team Member Selection
1. Match the person to the position. Lack of personal
technical capability is seldom a problem. Technical mismatches sometimes are. In some cases, technical qualifications in some areas are surprisingly high, and a person who could serve well in most situations may not be up to host country expectations. Another type of mismatch is a person completely adequate for a range of responsibilities assigned to a responsibility outside that range. Management has to assume responsibility for inadequate performance under these conditions, not the person.
2. Check for host country personality preferences. Some countries prefer assertive people, others prefer more passive types. Check with experienced persons to find if your host country has such preferences and what they are.
3. The right combination of persons is as important as
individual members. Check for mix of technical abilities as well as combination of personality types and styles of work. Consider needs and interests of host institution.
4. Start early and give yourself as much time as you can in puttingthe team together.
5. If an ideal candidate does not accept your invitation, ask her/him to help identify someone with same qualifications.
1
6. Be able to explain role and significance! of all
positions. Sometimes significance of a position and need for a person is as good a motivator as is salary.
7. Analyze thoroughly the actions contractor can take within own discretion to make service on the project more attractive, both professionally and in quality of life. Reflect this in project policy, management, and recruitment.
8. Team leader should be selected first and should be involved in recruiting others.
V-2




9. You have more time in selecting replacements. Use it.
To the extent feasible, send prospective candidates on short term duty to the project.
D. Team Orientation, General
Until a person has lived or worked in a country it is
difficult for her/him to appreciate much of what you can give in an orientation. Even though its effectiveness is limited, orientation does have value, and the value is critical.
Think in orienting original team and replacements. For replacements you will have much more information than you had for original team. The project will soon seem commonplace to you, but it's not'to the new team member. Don't slight the replacement personnel and families.
1. Recognize importance of family, who does not have the
support that the team members' professional responsibilities and activities provide.
2. Describe the country,. location with respect to other countries, geography, climate, life style, culture, economic situation, politics and history, and matters of specific relevance to project and team. Provide a map.
3. Build a small library team members can use in their own
preparation. Useful materials are project documents, other donor prepared documents, your proposal, the contract, along with other information you can accumulate that would be helpful.
4. Provide both information and discussion opportunity for families on living conditions. Health and education opportunities are often of most concern. Develop as much information as you can on international communication and transportation facilities; contractor perquisites, such as access to donor facilities--health nurse, diplomatic mail, commissary, furniture; shopping facilities--locally, in-country, nearby, and by mail order--including team members' importation privileges and restrictions; recreation facilities and tourist possibilities; opportunities for family member activities; opportunities for family members to work, either as professionals or volunteers.
5. Provide an orientation kit for each family--with map of country and capital city, important phone numbers and addresses, churches, donor privileges available and rules for accessing them, international communications facilities (airlines, telex, and cable numbers), ways to contact team and family members in an emergency. Provide information that is critical, vital, or highly useful, keeping the kit as neat and maneageble as you can.
6. Discuss, to the extent you can determine it yourself, the "cultural positioning" of the team and family members. Perhaps all you can do is to stimulate an awareness and encourage your personnel to be sensitive to certain issues. These will vary
V-3




country by country and even within country, depending on location. How visible are you as foreigners? What is expected of you? What can you expect? 'What cultural customs are critical? What is general reaction to foreigners? Specific attitudes towards U.S. persons?
7. If there are any security problems or precautions needed give realistic information and explanation of them. These could be in the project area, other places in the country, countries which team members are likely to visit, or countries and cities enroute. Be as realistic as possible. Do not raise unreasonable fears.
E. Team Orientation, Professional
Team members need orientation beyond the general which they need along with their families.
1. Describe the purpose of the project. The donor has a
specific purpose this project is expected to accomplish. You as contractor also have a purpose. Be sure the team understands how this project fits both donor and contractor purpose.
2. Help the team-understand the 'difference between overseas operations and domestic 'operations. Because of personnel scarcity, they often are expected to cover a broader scope of responsibility than in the United States. They may have to handle questions of organization and management that never arise at home. If some concepts are new to host country or host institution, such as area-spec'ific research or the technical liaison and support function, spend some time on the principles of these functions. Some other parts of this handbook will be useful. You can use others to help develop an understanding of the concepts.
3. Let the team know the policies and practices regarding team identity and deployment in the project. How closely will the team be expected to integrate its members~ into the operations of the host institution. There needs to be a project policy, and. the team needs to know it. What will be the members' expected relationship to team leader? To his counterpart? To donor personnel? To host institution management?
4. Inform the team as fully as you are able to do the names of key actors in the host institution and host country. Although subject to change, any special relationships among key actors or between key actors and high officials need to be made known. Do not attempt, however, to be precise on just what significance these relationships have.
5. Try to develop some political awareness and sensitivity
in the team, but do not overemphasize political relationships. It is extremely difficult for foreigners to understand and evaluate these relationships, and the cost of error is often greater than the consequences of ignorance.
V-4




6. Inform the team on the personal reward structure of the
host institution. That helps understand the behavior and actions of counterparts. The structure in which they operate is likely considerably different from your. If you do not know it, counsel the team to learn it and report it back.
7. Counsel team to stick to its own task and objectives, and not try to solve the many problems they will see or think they see. After an individual is well fitted into the host institution and has won respect and confidence of his counterparts, he may be able to work on some problems outside his specific assignment. Even then he should give attention to those things that are critical to the project, not to "all the problems of the world." Work on the extra-assignment problems ought not be allowed to detract from the assignment.
8. Communication is vital to team members far from home and their own institution. Inform them fully of who will keep them informed on what matters, who they are to inform on what matters, who is expected to help them on various problems'-what the communications procedures are among the team in he field. If these have not been decided work it out with the team. If team is new, anything worked out before arriving in country will be subject to change. However, it is useful to have something and to have an understanding of how it is to be changed. In general, the more communication the better, team members should not be inhibited in communicating outside the project, and care should be taken in using written means of communicating material or information critical to other persons or groups.
9. As well as it can be done, inform the team of other
donors and projects that are relevant to this one and the nature of the relationship. Sensitize the team to the importance of informing itself of other projects and determining the proper linkages to develop with them. This is information that needs to be communicated to contractor support group. Don't attempt to build linkages that do not serve a real purpose. Linkages cost time and money and have no value unless.they serve the host institution, either directly or through your project. Keeping informed, however, is worth some effort.
F. Backstop Structure and Administration
One of the first steps in project implementation is setting up the backstop or support structure and system of management. This structure becomes visible only when it doesn't work. The need is to keep it invisible.
1. Identify the key actors the support structure must deal with. The donor and the host institution are the two principal organizations, but there may be others. Within the two organizations, determine who does what. This requires understanding something of their organizational structures, procedures, and positions that you will be dealing with. Know as many of the persons as is feasible, but they will change, so you need insight into organization and procedures.
V-5




2. Each project is atypical and needs its own management
* system. The system will be a blend of contractor, donor, and host
institution procedures, designed to serve specific project needs.
The most effective way to accomplish this is a meeting in
country of representatives of the organizations that have the authority to make decisions. In case of donors, find out what
decisions are made in country and which at headquarters.
3. Administrative procedures need to be developed. Beyond
this expectations need to be clarified about other roles of the
contractor support system, especially those dealing with
procurement of commodities, recruitment of staff, handling of participant trainees. You also need to know how to deal with
emergencies, especially medical and medical evacuation problems.
Other matters to deal with include accounting and auditing expectations, customs clearing for project commodities and
household goods, and shipping practices.
4. Seek'to anticipate recurrent needs-.and to develope
prcedures so they can be routinized. Establishing routines that
fit all organizations' needs and procedures not only saves time
and cost, it is also improves project quality.
5. Relevant project documents, such as project paper and
contract, need to be reviewed for any special administrative
needs or for any special administrative problems, either created
or neglected in the document. There may be need to amend the
contract or agree on special interpretation to provide project
needs. Any special interpretations need to be reflected in the.
files, either by minutes or a memo confirming the interpretation.
G. Project Start-Up
Many things need to be done at once. Housekeeping tasks
will be important and will take much of your time, but in this
section attention is turned to the project and to its
responsibilities to serve the interests of the host institution.
You need to rely on your own judgment to set priorities.
1. The only priority to suggest is related to the calendar.
You could lose (or gain) a crop year, depending on how sensitive
you are to the calendar. Check the cropping cycle and set
priorities on what needs to be done and how much time you have
before you have to fall under control of the calendar.
2. Review project design paper. Take it seriously but not
religiously. In a very short time of living and working in a
country, you will have information and insights the design group
could not have. The project is now your responsibility. Take
charge. Clarify the goals and objectives of the project, develop a conceptualization that can be shared by team members, and from
these set team objectives and individual objectives. (See H,
Objectives in Team and Task Management.)
V-6




3. After the team has reviewed the project and set goals and objectives, work with the host institution colleagues to build a workable concensus dealing with conceptualization and goals and objectives. The team may have to modify some of its ideas and concepts, but it is important to have a workable concensus. That does not mean total agreement. There are various ways to achieve a working concensus. They all involve interaction between your team and the host institution, but whether in one group, several smaller groups, or between individuals you will need to decide.
4. One of the first objectives to accomplish is individual acceptance of team members by host institution. On'e effective way to do this is to make a sincere effort to learn all that seems reasonable from host institution personnel about the country, its agriculture, and the host institution and its programs. Travelling with counterparts to learn about agriculture and to meet people is *useful. Don't feel compelled to demonstrate your own competence and knowledge until a specific need arises.
5. Start to think almost immediately how the host
institution with project help can make a production impact fairly quickly. If managed correctly a plan for early impact can gain the host institution needed visibility, can help with linkage and other institution building variables, and can help your team achieve credibility. FSR/E is expected to test available and almost-ready technology, make some minor adaptations,. and move it to farmers. Keep the need and possibility of early impact in mind as you develop team objectives and work with host institution in setting project working goals and objectives.
6. Establish working arrangements with the host institution. It is seldom advisable for the team to be housed as a group. That gives it more visibility than is needed and impedes the development of an identity, with the host institution, its problems, and its purposes. The extent to which team members identify with the host institution is a good measure of project success. That identity can best be encouraged by dispersing the team to the working units of the host institution. This may cause some inconveniences at first, but it will add to project effectiveness and eventually to team member satisfaction. Once located, members need to seek to become stafff" and colleagues.
7. Keep the team and project visibility as low as the donor policies will allow. Your task is to support the host institution, and for this purpose the lower the team visibility the better. The project will automatically be "visible" in those places in which it needs visibility and to the extent needed. The host institution needs to build its self-esteem and selfconfidence, and high project visibility does not help. Team members need contacts and good personal relations, not visibility.
V-7




H. Objectives in Team and Task Management
This handbook gives a considerable emphasis to the value and use of objectives. It suggests that the design team use objectives as an organizing device and that evaluations be organized largely around objectives. These short term teams can make good use of objectives, but the objectives that make the difference are the ones that the implementation team develops and works with. A team can seldom work effectively with objectives developed by someone else. Besides, with its chance to come to know and understand the project environment the team can be expected -to come up with better objectives. .Your team needs its own, objectives, to serve its own purpose, following its own defininitions. They should be consistent with the design team's objectives, but the important thing is that you follow your own criteria.
Writing objectives requires information, thought, analysis and discussion. This presents a good opportunity to involve the team as a team. This involvement will likely give better analysis than is possible otherwise, but it also encourages team member participation, which always improves chances for success. Project team participation in this exercise is not inconsistent with the concept of officing the team with host institution units. Host institution interests can be better reflected in. the team's plans, if team is dispersed. There may come a time when host institution personnel will be involved with the team in reviewing and revising objectives.
Objectives need to be revised as the situation changes-or as you accumulate more infomration and understanding of it. They need to be under continual (or periodic) review, and that requires monitoring and evaluation.
Objectives need to be stated correctly. They are most useful when: They are stated as declarative statements.
They describe a future state or situation (not simply a process or set of activities.) They contain the specifics related to a problem solution.
They can probably be accomplished within project constraints.
You can deal with a heirarchy of objectives, i.e. have short term objectives that are means for moving toward a long-term objective. This ranking of objectives should not get too complicated or detailed. For detailed planning, use other management devices such as the activity network or Delta Chart.
You can deal with objectives that are common for the team, or with individual objectives or subgroup objectives.




Below is a simple format to help think through the
objectives, to standardize presentation, and to help communicate to donor, evaluation teams, host institution, and others who want to understand your project. Modify it or devise one for your own purpose.
Objectives Date to Factors Factors Actions
Achieve Hinderina Helping Intended
Progress Progress
You can use the objective chart in making presentations to the evaluation teams or in evaluating their evaluations. This handbook suggest (1) that evaluation teams use team objective statements in their evaluations and (2) that they encourage selfevaluation as part of the effort.
In identifying and evaluating factors hindering and factors helping, you are using a management technique known as "Force Field Analysis." You can use brainstorming and group discussion techniques to make the two lists of factors. Group discussion can be used in -analysis, but more study may-be needed. You also need to identify and analyze the alternatives you have for. action. Finally, you need to decide on actions and program them, in a strategy for strengthening or taking advantage of the factors that help and removing or attenuating the factors that hinder,
I'. Managing Evaluations
Evaluations are important episodes in the life of a project and can be used to enhance project management. They can be used to show off your accomplishments and need not be a cause of worry or dread. Your own attitude is critical. It permeates everything you do, and it shows through to all observers and helps create the general image of your project. That "general image" is important in that it in turn helps create-the expectations, both of the donor and the evaluators, of what will result from the evaluation. Psychologists have long held that what people expect to find helps determine what they do find. The external image will likely be related to the team's own image, and thus expectations. Certainly, a team's expectations of itself has important influence on its own performance.
Two guidelines are important. Take charge of the project, including evaluation, and develop and demonstrate a positive mental attitude.
V-9




1. Take charge. Monitoring and evaluation are as important as any other components of management. In your own interests, you need continuous evaluation. Start at once to develop a system. Keep it simple. Don't let it get out of hand.
2. The first step in designing an evaluation system is to
select evaluation criteria. In part this anticipates what others are going to want and in part it is built on what you need.
Start with the project design document and note what
it has on the subject. The Logical Framework can be made into an excellent evaluation tool. Finally, review the contract. These will give you a good idea of what the donor intends. From these synthesize a list of criteria. Match them against your own ideas, based on observation and experienced against the interests and ideas of the host institution. As you gain experience, review the match among these interests.
From this draw up a list of evaluation criteria that
will serve your purposes specifically and will be consistent with donor expectations. The more you can work with the host institution the more fruitful will be your efforts. Be sure your list is consistent with your objectives.
3. The second step is to develop measures that will reflect the criteria. You need measures that can be used well before any impacts of the project are likely. Early in the project these will be related more to input management than to output. As time goes on, more attention can be given to outputs. With inputs, however, there is a type of interim output. Selection and processing of participants is an interim or intermediate output of an input of expatriate technical assistance and resources Results of the first year's research is an intermediate output, be it the characterization of a type of farming area, results of research, or the start of area-specific research in a new area.
These intermediate or interim measures are tricky. They can easily fall into measures of input, and little more. There will be some value in measures of input, but you can go farther without violating the criteria of simplicity.
One means of going farther is to conceptualize the
task or tasks you face, to translate the conceptualization into activities, and to put them on an activity chart. Progress through the activity chart will produce significant interim outputs. If they don't seem significant, then the activity chart needs to be revised. This indicates the relationship among planning, objective setting, and evaluation.
4. You will need a means of gathering information on the measures you have developed. Information should be that which the team itself can provide, and by activities that are closely related to the regular team duties. For example, if you can use information that a team member needs to record as part of his work, you gain efficiency and increase the chance that your system will indeed be implemented.
V-10




5. Developing a good project image has two components. The project must be well managed, but in large part image results from style of operation. These two are more closely related than they seem. Here are some guidelines.
a. Don't emphasize problems in conversations and
reports. Emphasize positive factors.
b. Face problems squarely in a systemmatic problemsolving mode. Face them promptly. Don't let them
linger. This is especially true of problems internal
to the project. Avoid situations that will cause
project members themselves to emphasize project
problems in their contacts and conversations.
c. If a problem has no solution, accomodate it. it
may be necessary to change strategy or objectives.
Or it may be necessary to live with it.
d. If you have to live with it, ignore it to the extent posssible, certainly in conversations and
reports.
e. Make the most of the positive elements of the
project, especially outputs and effective project
action.
f. Be able to explain your project clearly,
in terms of objectives, strategy, and accomplishments.
Also be sure the entire team is able to. This
requires good communication and team interaction.
g. Keep contact with other groups who have an interest
in your project and help them to keep informed.
v-11




J. Managing New Components
A project is often introducing something *new. In some
cases new activities cause no concern. Sometimes, however, they are met with fear and suspicion by some units Of the host institution or by other entities. If other units are fearful or suspicious, it is damaging to the host institution and its linkage possibilities. Below are some actions you can take.
1. Identify the ways the new component can be helpful to the units whose collaboration you need. In one case, for example, an area-specific research program won the support of a commodity team by helping triple the number of trials that could be run. The commodity team reasoned that allowing field researchers to help plan the field trials was a reasonable price to pay for the extra trials. If the new component cannot be helpful to other units, this is an indication that something is wrong with design or implementation strategy.
2. Identify with other activities or programs that have momentum or with problems or programs that are receiving more attention than usual and seek means to be helpful to them. Remember, however, that this is suggested as an implementation strategy and should not be allowed to detract from project goals and objectives.
3. Work as closely and directly with the farm production
process as is feasible and in line with project objectives. You may be able to relate this to the need for early production impact and be able to work it into project strategy.
K. Going the Extra Mile
The basic and overriding purpose of your project is to help the host institutiton with its own development. It is easy to lose sight of this purpose because of the immediate pressure of managing a project, which takes on its own life and can easily appear as an end in itself. The project will likely have some institution building components. In almost all cases there is much more that needs to be and can be done, within resources that the project has available to it.
You have some resources. You have. your own expertise, and can always squeeze out a little time. It is always possible to make some adjustments in the use and selection of short-term consultants and in short-term training provisions of the project. It is possible to amend the contract without unreasonable trouble. There are also some indirect resources. Your donor and others may have funds available for sound and worthy purposes. The very existence of your project may create investment opportunities for other donors and interest in helping out.
Your chance to go the extra mile in helping the host
institution in its own development will be directly associated with the rapport team members are able to establish with their
V -12




host institution colleagues, including top management. One of the most useful means to establish this rapport is to develop an identity with the host institution, until team members can feel the problems, the frustrations, and the aspirations of the institution as well as those of individuals. This identity helps, project success and makes service on the project more interesting and more satisfying to the team.
Once a rapport is established many possibilities Open up. It will be a rare case in which the host institution does not have serious management problems. Once there is rapport, those problems can be discussed and faced objectively. Until then, little is to be gained by offering help in management.
With rapport, you can also help host institution management search for funds among donors for its own purposes. To the extent the institution takes initiative in seeking funds for specific developmental purposes according to its own criteria it has a say in its own destiny. The host institution may be able to use the presence of your project and your counsel to improve its chances.
You can also deal with problems of linkages. It is in the interest of a research entity, for example, for extension to have some assistance to increase its ability to link with research. .The potent ial for your team helping establish these linkages is likely to be considerably greater than is at first evident.
Perhaps the biggest opportunity is to help the host
institution with its management problems. That is dealt with below.
L. Host Institution Management
Host institution mana-ement is much more demanding than it is for counterpart institutions in developed countries. Every manager has the responsibility to maintain and build the organization, at the same time being responsible for operations or production. In mature organizations the building-maintenance responsibility is much lighter than it is in new or inadequate organizations. Host institution managers are faced with enormous tasks in developing their institutions, and they operate under serious national resource constraints. Donor funds often come with conditions and for purposes which fit donor criteria rather than host country needs and interests. The upshot is that many LDC managers find themselves supervising routines without much real chance or resource that will enable them to manage.
Your project can help, but results will come slowly and will not be dramatic. There are some things you need not do. You cannot manage. That does not solve anything beyond the immediate need. You cannot advise, except in minor matters. Advice from expatriates is likely to be based on criteria and premises that are not relevant. The most effective thing you can do is counsel as they work out their own management solutions,
V-13




following their own criteria, in addressing their own problems as they define the problems. You can provide counsel--helping to understand the processes of management, helping to identify alternatives, and helping to analyse them--and you can provide specific help for specific problems, through either your own person or short term consultants.
Of all the management needs three stand out.
1. One is the need for long-range or strategic planning. Developing a long-range plan will likely be more difficult for research than for extension. Few LDC' s can provide the research they need from in-country resources. They can get help from international sources, but will likely still have to make some choices. Some of their problems may have to go unattended, even with the combined efforts of national and international resources. Taking advantage of those international resources requires a minimum national capacity (a) to decide what to look for and (b) to handle the technology it receives, and a specific strategy or system for maintaining linkages with entities in the international technology network. (See III-E, and IV-C, this handbook.)
This planning effort needs to be spread out over several years and involve participation of research entity personnel as well as other entities, such as national planning, universities, extension, and possibly others. Expatriates can help. One person, in country two times a year for three years, could be much more effective than a team of expatriates for a month or so.
2. The second major management problem faced by host
institution management is the acquisition of resources. Seldom do donor projects address this problem, even though it is central to institutional management around the world. This handbook, in the Chapter IV, Section C, suggests it be included in design and lists some alternatve actions for consideration.
Even if not included in the project, you can do
something about it, and you can do it with few resources. The main thing is to address the issue and see that there are several alternatives to depending solely on the national treasury. The development and existence of a long-range plan will be of exceptional value in fund acquisition.
3. The third major problem is that of linkage between
research and extension, a problem which has seldom been solved to any significant extent. Tlvis is difficult to understand, since the success of each entity depends heavily on the success of the other. There are several possible explanations for the persistence of this problem.
V- 14




One is that the two entities are working at opposite ends of the technology innovation process and ignoring the center functions. This means that they have little or no chance for contact, interation, and linkage. To resolve this problem, it may require a change in program or organization.
A second explanation is that the manner in which each one defines its purpose does not require linkage. This would hold that research defines its purpose as doing research with no responsibility for dissemination. It holds that extension views its job as routine dissemination when someone gives it something to disseminate. Neither defines its purpose as changing and improving agricultural production. This indicates that neither entity sees any real purpose in linkage and has not assigned some group or some individuals the specific responsibility to develop and maintain linkages with the other.
A third explanation is that with research oriented to
science and technology and with extension composed largely of field agents with sub-professional training there is too much social distance between the two groups that interaction, collaboration, and linkage is not likely. Another manifestation of this situation is that extension, with so little attention to technical liaison and support does not have the capacity to hold up its end of the research-extension linkage.
It may be that one of the important things you can do is to understand the persistence of the problem. Once the problem is understood and stated, there may be some fairly clear signals as to how to resolve it.
V-i15




CHAPTER VI
Evaluation
Research and Extension Projects
A. Introduction:
Primary audience for this chapter is the evaluation team
and contracting entity, although some of the information will be useful to both the donor and the implementing team and in discussions between the evaluation team and its clients.
There are several types of evaluations. This handbook
assumes a mid-project evaluation which has the main purpose of helping the donor to understand project progress and to make decisions regarding project direction, process, and design. The donor is the primary client of an evaluation. Expect that donor personnel know a great deal about the project and have been conducting a continuous de facto evaluation. In most cases the donor provides a scope of work for the evaluation and may also identify problems or other issues that need attention. In some cases the donor will provide criteria, but in many cases it is up to the, team to select and apply the criteria.
While the donor is the main client, these guidelines aim for the evaluation to be useful for the implementation tea'm and even for the host institution. To serve these three audiences it is useful for the evaluation team to take a positive attitude and develop an empathy for the three involved.
Empathy and a positive attitude will serve the evaluation
team well on other accounts. In most evaluations the project has not had time to generate definitive impacts, especially if persistence is one of the criterion for impact. This means that evaluators must rely heavily on judgments and inferences in trying to project the probable impact of project strategy and activities. Data will be difficult to come by, and much of the data that can be accumulated must be interpreted. It will not be straightforward. The only way the team can handle the data and develop expectations of its probable significance is to rely heavily on judgment and intuition. That involves considerable risk. One way to make that risk manageable is to approach the task with empathy for the actors in the situation in which they are working.
It is -useful to keep in mind the purpose of the evaluation. It is not to find and publish the ultimate truth, or to establish error and place blame. It is to help improve project management and execution, and the key for that is the implementation team. The more successful evaluators are in establishing rapport with that team the more likely their recommendations will be effective. A DOSitive attitude and empathy are useful devices in establishing t at rapport.
VI-1




B. Preparation for the Task
Time is a critical element in an evaluation, time for
preparation as well as time for execution. Under time pressure, pre-departure preparation is often sacrificed, even though a few days work before leaving for the assignment helps save time in the field and improve effectiveness of field time.
1. By evaluation time a sizeable paper trail has been established. Evaluation team should expect donor and implementer to help-establish that trail. It consists of project documents, project reports, consultant reports, and perhaps other donor documents relevant to the project. Try to get the time to study these documents.
2. A two-day pre-departure briefing will help the
team get to know each other, to share common goals and concepts, and to gain an expectation'of the task and the division of responsibilites. This creates a useful mental set and enables the team to make better use of travel time than would be possible without it. Try to avoid having to arrive in field a group of strangers with little concept of the task. Here are some things to accomplish in the pre-departure briefing.
a. Get the donor's views of the project, the 'country strategy, how the project fits country strategy, and other information on country, economic situation, political situation, and the like.
b. Review technical criteria, conceptual models and other material that will help the team members to operate from a common technical base. There are many and divergent views regardind research and extension, and especially so when FSR/E is involved. With the use of models and discussion, the team can develop common concepts, at least for communication purposes.
c. Accumulate project information, especially from persons who know the project and the country. This could be from the implementing agent, persons experienced in the project, or others. Accumulate some paper, but be highly selective in the paper you lug around.
d. Begin to organize the team. Find out the interests and capabilities of members and help them develop expectations of their responsibilities.
3. Insist on and expect an in-country briefing as
soon as it appears feasible upon arrival. Donor personnel will have varying views depending on their position in the organization. Normally the donor's country office is more your client than is the headquarter office.




C., Evaluation Strategy
Your strategy should be a general method of operation with c.ertain generalized objectives and style of operation.
1. Be sure you understand what donor personnel who are responsible for managing the project want and need from the evaluation. Don't rely too heavily on the Scope of Work. Take the manager's needs seriously and be sure they are attended.
2. Develop some concept of implementation team' s management needs that the evaluation may be able to help satisfy.
3. Search for positive aspects of project. It is just as productive to build on strength as it is to correct weakness.
4. Identify the negative aspects.
5. Place-the positive and negative into a larger perspective that is useful or functional.
In general this strategy aims to gain rapport withboth
the project and the donor by (a) seeing their points of view and
(b) seeking the positive. Empathy and positive attitude help gain rapport, which in turn helps to deal with problems in an objective manner. An evaluation-holds something of a personal or individual threat, even though the evaluation team itself has no such intention. Your strategy needs to reduce that threat so that problems can be addressed separate from persons. You can deal with problems coldly and logically--once you have dealt with persons warmly and psychologically.
6. Recommendations need to be considered carefully. In some cases, donorsreview and modify your recommendations. In others the donor will take your recommendations almost without question, placing the responsibility completely on you. If your report is to be taken seriously, the recommendations must be significant, must be realistic, must address the factors most limiting success of the project, and must be compatible with the notions of those charged with managing the project. Being compatible does not mean agreement or whitewash. It means care in casting the recommendation so that it fits management style and project concepts of those responsible for the project.
Resist the temptation to make too many recommendations.
Don't make a recommendation out of a "good idea" if it takes too many resources, too much time, and has little chance of being put into effect.
If you have suggestions, use a heading such as
alternativess to consider." Many "recommendations" would be better described as "alternatives and do need further study before being adopted. Recall that the project manager and donor live with a project you are seeing only for a matter of weeks. Recognize the limitations imposed on you by the limitations of time.
VI-3




D. Objectives and Self-Evaluation
This handbook has emphasized the use of objectives in both project design and implemention. Now it does so in project evaluation. If objectives are being used in line with these guidelines, it will greatly facilitate your work to use them in evaluation. If the project has not used them up until now, you can still use them--and at the same time demonstrate their value in project management.
The most productive way for you to use objectives is to
have the implementation team state and review its own objectives and then to do a self-evaluation of the project. Such an exercise will generate data and insights useful to you. It will also help you establish rapport as well as initiate a useful process in the project.
In dealing with objectives, use whatever is written down,
but also-spend adequate time in discussion with the team, both as a group and with individuals to allow them to explain the project to you. You should expect that the team can explain to you the conceptualization of the project and of project strategy. The team should expect to be asked to explain this conceptualization and should expect to have an opportunity to do so. How well the team performs in explaining conceptualization and objectives is an important element of the- evaluation.
A simple format will help the implementation team provide useful information and analysis. If the team has developed a format, use it to the extent you are able. See the formats suggested in the chapters addressing project design and project implementation.
This exercise will enable the implementation team to help set the parameters of the evaluation. If its parameters are not consistent with your scope of work, i.e. the donor's parameters, check to see if it results from some miscommunication or difference in viewpoint or if the problem is more serious, such as a lack of congruence of the concepts of donor and implementation team or even a confrontation on some aspects of project management.
E. Strive for Objectivity
The emphasis placed here on empathy, a positive attitude, and the need for rapport should not be interpreted to mean that you need not be objective and even tough. Difficult though it is, strive for as much objectivity as is feasible. Analysts like to use the term "rigor," a term often associated with numbers. The problem with numbers is placing a meaning on them or making them relevant to the project. We simply are not able to provide standards or norms for some of the coefficients. Getting reliable data often takes more time than an evaluation team has, and many of the numbers may be relevant to host institution management but clearly outside the responsibilities of the project.
VI-4




Non-quantifiable data can also be objective and can be used with rigor, although the tests of such analysis is not standard. One way to gain rigor is to present the data, in a descriptive form or by numbers, and then, separately, to explain its use as evidence in support of a point or recommendation. Evidence is the interpretation of the data used to support a point. This all admits much risk for error in judgment and intutition. Your only defense is to report and explain as completely as the limited space of an evaluation report allows. You may be able to use the models presented in this handbook to help reduce this risk.
F. Validity
Because of the subjective nature of an evaluation and the short time that you have to do it, achieving validity is not always easy. For your team to achieve credibility, you must be concerned with the problem. Here are some things you an do.
1. Plan your work systemmatically. Models will help you as will the implementation team's objectives and self-evaluation.
2. Check for consistency in both observations and analyses among your team members. Solving the inconsistencies may lead you through an exercise that will improve validity.
3. Develop hypotheses as soon as appears feasible and check them out specifically in your interviews. You may be able to specify the data needed, the source, and assign more than one member of the team to test the hypothesis. The entire team can hear the evidence and help draw inferences and conclusions.
4. Identify important data needs and gaps as early in the evaluation to improve your chance of getting the data.
5. Start drafting the report early in the evaluation. Writing the report is a good way to reveal data gaps and inconsistencies.
6. Interview techniques are critical. Never, ever, use questions in an interview that can be answered with "yes" or "1no."1 These questions are so easy to answer that they yield misinformation as often as information. They are especially ineffective when you and the respondent do not share a common native language. Instead use questions that require thought and require a description or analysis.
A second useful technique is to demonstrate the attitude of a student, trying to learn and understand. Avoid the impression that you are trying to prove a point or make a case. Respondents are likely to be candid in helping you learn and understand. They are put on guard if you are trying to prove a point or make a case.
VI-5




G. Extra-Evaluation Agendas
Occasionally you will encounter situations in which some of the parties involved will want to use your team and the evaluation to achieve an objective that is only marginally related to the purpose of an evaluation. Many of these extraevaluation agendas are legitimate, and you may be able to make a genuine contribution without compromising your own reponsibility. However, in some cases they are simply attempts to use you and your task for ends that have little relevance to your task and could be harmful to your job.
You have to rely on your own judgment (1) in recognizing these agendas and (2) in deciding how to handle them.
In some cases, even a legitimate request may be outside
your responsibililty. For example, either the implementing agent or the donor, may want an evaluation of an implementing team member. This is clearly outside what one should expect from an evaluation. It may be completely legitimate, in which case you can decide what to do as an individual, outside the evaluation. However, such a request could be part of an ongoing personality conflict in which your contribution could do as much harm as good. In other cases conflicts between two persons result from fundamental differences in viewpoint on technical criteria, and the issue may have to be faced.
Some guidelines may be useful.
Only one evaluation report should probably be written. It can treat squarely and in a straightforward manner, many problems that appear delicate or sensitive if rapport has been established and if the issue is handled objectively and according to fairly specific criteria. If a separate report seems needed or has been requested, consider very carefully before writing it. Consider the alternative of an oral report--if the need and request is legitimate and seems needed. Let the requester, in a memo of conversation, write it down if he needs it written.
In some cases the request is clearly more than can be expected of an evaluation team, and your best alternative is simply not to grant it.
You may have experience or make observations that interest you as an individual and have value in another context. Handle these cases by your own criteria. They can be handled or responded to but outside the framework of the evaluation.
In some cases ignorance is your best strategy. If you
sense trouble on an issue not important to the evaluation task, the best alternative may be to ignore it and all the data presented to you.
VI -6




H. Evaluation Report Outline
There is no standard format for an evaluation report. The one below is given as a starting point for you to deviope your own. It will result from your own style of operation, the scope of work, and your discussions with the donor and others.
1. Project Evaluation Summary
The PES is also called the Face Sheet. It is a standard AID form, and much of it will be filled out by the donor.
The body of the PES is made up of a list of actions to be
taken against names of specific persons who will be
expected to take those actions and the time at which they
will be completed.
The actions will be derived from your recommendations.
This is one reason to keep your list of recommendations
short and to make them realistic both from the standpoint
of impact and actionabililty.
2. Introduction
Give some idea of the purpose and conditions of the
evaluation. There are several reasons for an evaluation.
There are several evaluations in the history of'a project,
and each will have its own conditions. Explain, briefly.
Use one paragraph for a brief description of the
methodology used in the evaluation. Explain how background
papers and interviews were used and how that data was
translated into an evaluation.
Closely related to methodology is the way the report was
prepared, who did the writing, who did the reviewing, and
how the final report was prepared.
3. Executive Summary
One to two pages, made u'p of numbered items that summarize
your report. You do not need much explanation here.
Simply assert your findings. List positive findings as
well as findings reflecting problems. /Lst these findings
in an impersonal style.
Avoid such wording as ??X should be commended for...," just
as you would "A should be criticized for..."
List your recommendations separate from findings, and make them in summary form with little detail and no discussion.




4. General Comments
There is often a need to comment on the project or the host
institution beyond the area covered by the scope of work.
If your team feels this need, use this heading. Keep
general comments to under three pages. It can come here or
later.
5. Evaluation
In this section, follow your scope of work, item by item, using the format below. If some items can be combined, do
so, but don't let an item get lost.
A. Scope of Work item Number one.
Evidence or findings
Discussion
Recommendations (and "alternatives to consider.)
B. to N.
If you have no recommendations (and you should not
unless they are significant) you can present findings
and discussions thoroughly. It is just as important to justify no recommendation on an item in a scope of work
as it is to justify a recommendation. Assume that the
donor is interested in your investigation of an issue
listed in the scope of work.
6. Extra-Scope of Work Issues
As disussed above, it is often useful to go beyond the
of work in gathering data and presenting analysis.
Much of the extra-scope material can fit in in the
scope if work above. Use a separate section, however,
if you need it.
Attempt to put all of your evaluation in one document
which becomes part of donor's memory. With reasonable
skill, sensitive issues can be dealt with adequately
in an official document.
7. People and Places/
List the people you talked with, the documents you read,
and the sites you visited.
8. Annexes
You may want to include material that does not fit in
report. Put it in one or more annexes.
V I-8




Appendix A
Technology Innovation Process (TIP) Model.:
The Technology Innovation Process Model is an over
simplified conceptualization of a process that is more complex and exact than is generally recognized. As with any conceptual model, it does not intend to represent reality. It is presented as an aid in understanding and working with reality. It should accomplish three purposes,
1. One is to help understand and explain the process with which research and extension must deal.
2. Another is to stimulate the imagination and help gain insights in managing research and extension.
3. Finally, it will help facilite communication among, all of the different persons involved in designing and sustaining a research or extension effort.
Technology Innovation is defined as an improved technology in general use by farmers. Unless an "improved technology" is put into the production process on a fairly broad scale, it is not an effective innovation in-terms of the industry and of agricultural developnment.
I. The Model
The model has eight components, commonly called functions. It appears here as a simple linear process, although in practice that is seldom the case. The model makes conceptual distinctions between functions that may be difficult to identify in practice. It is not necessary to distinguish among the functions in practice, and in fact it may be harmful to try too hard to do so.
1. The World Stock of Knowledge is held in the
International Technology Network, largely in the International Agricultural Research Centers and in research and extension organizations of other countries. There is not a formal network with coordination and management, but there is networking activity among some of the entities who hold science and technology knowledge. The World Stock of Knowledge includes folk wisdom and traditional technology as well as scientific knowledge and advanced technology. Some of it is embodied in products-seed, chemicals, implements--some in manuals and books; and some in the minds, intuitions, and traditions of people. 'Much of it is present in-country. Any country can take advantage of this stock. To a large extent, LDC's do not have to catch UP to the world's technology; they can catch ON to it.
A-i




2. Research in this model refers to science, in contrast to technology. Scientific research seeks new knowledge, and it does so by abstracting from the real world. It seeks as much control over variables as is feasible. It is analytical. New knowledge, of itself, has no value to farmers, until it is put into a technology. Farmers can't use science. They need technology.
However, most technology advances are based on science, and science is the basis for so-called breakthroughs. Technological advance is often stopped for want of new knowledge that only science can provide.
3. Technology generation puts together knowledge,
technology, even folk wisdom into a form that serves a useful function. This form may be a commodity, such as seed, or it may be a practice, such as placement of fertilizer. Technology generation synthesizes. It makes new knowledge useful. Technology must serve in un-controlled conditions and is more useful the wider range of conditions it tolerates. The role of technology generation is to produce new technology alternatives.
While there is a conceptual distinction between scientific research and technology generation, they often blend into each other in practice. They both use the scientific method, and both can make use of a high degree of training and ,creativity. Both are essential to agricultural progress.
4. Technology testing moves the technology from the
conditions in which it was generated to determine its performance in other conditions. Eventually the new technology must be tested on farms--i.e. in the farming systems in which it is expected to perform. On-farm testing is essential, and if research and extension do not do it, then the farmer will have to do it himself. Farmer testing may be effective, but it will also be inefficient and will greatly delay technology innovation.
5. Technology adaptation serves two functions. It is the process by which a newly generated technology can be fine tuned to fit the farming system for which it is intended. It is also the process by which minor changes are made to fit the technology to a wider range of farming systems. Efficiency in the process is increased as the technology serves a wider range of systems.
6. Technology Integration is that fits a new technology into into current farming systems. It has three dimensions.
a. One pertains directly to the system of production. integration is facilitated by a knowledge of the farmer client as a basis for selecting problems and designing interventions. It is also facilitated by research on related problems and by extension instructing farmers on its use.
A-2




As with testing, integration is essential. The farmer must do it. If he has to do it without research and extension help, it will be inefficient and slow.
b. A second dimension is integration with the market, both input and product. Much agricultural technology is embodied in a commodity. If that commodity is not available and cannot be made available, a new technology cannot be adapted, no matter what its merit. Integration involves market action to make inputs available or research-extension activity adapted to the lack of input. -On the product side, if there is inadequate market, farmers cannot integrate the technology into their systems of production.
c. The third dimension is integration with national policies. National policy often works through product and input markets and sets conditions the farmer must adapt to. These conditions affect the ways he can deal with new technology. If policies are not adequate and cannot be changed, the conditions they create must be adapted to.
7. Technology Dissemination involves informing farmers of
the new technology and helping them figure out how to fit it into their systems of farming.
For simple technology, informing is all that is needed, and farmers themselves can fit it into their systems. Disemination means "1to seed," and for simple technology, seedingn" is all that is needed.
The extensiondemonstration is one of the most effective seeding devices. It may not beas much a "demonstrating" as it' is a means by which the farmer' s own experimental process is facilitated. Most farmers are both experimental and skeptical. They will not adopt a practice until they have either experimented with it in their own system or have seen it perform in a system almost like theirs. The demonstration facilitates this process and is literally an "on-farm trial."'
As technology becomes more complex, more assistance is
needed from extension to help farmers fit it into their systems.
8. Diffusion and adoption are largely a function of the
farmer dynamic. Farmers themselves, through their kinship groups and other social systems, constitute a powerful force, working either to facilitate or to impede diffusion. This farmer dynamic has been responsible for much diffusion throughout history, unaided by research and extension. Extension is most effective when it takes advantage of and encourages the farmer dynamic.
Diffusion and dissemination are distinguished here to
reflect the distinction between outside forces and the farmers' own force in the diffusion function of the process.
A-3




Technology
World Stock Technology Technology Technology Technology Technology Diffusion
Of Research Generation Testing Adaptation Integration Dissemination &
Knowledge Adoption
Figure A-1. The Technology Innovation Process
World Stock of Agricultural Science and Technology OR
Technology
Technology Technology Technology Technology Technology Diffusion
RESEARCH Generation Testing Adaptation Integration Disemination &
Adoption
~- -SCIENCE Ar Technology D0velmnt
-.~~~ Resech Organiztion-m
Extension Organization
Figure A-2 The Technology Innovation Process
A-4




Technology
Worl Sock Technology Technology Technology Technology Technology Diffusion
oReerh Generation Testig Adaptation Integration Dissemination &
KnowedgeAdoption
R
AREA -SPECIFIC RESEARCH
SUBJECT MATTER FIELD
RESEARCH EXTENSION
EC ,T
Figure A-3m: Activity Assignments to Implement
the Technology Innovation Process
Technology
Technology Technology Technology Technology Technology Diffusion
of Reseach Generation Testing Adaptation Integration Dissem ination &
Adoption
R X
E T
Figure A-3b: Activity Assignment Work Sheet
A-5




II. Some Implications of. the TIP Model
1. Technology innovation is a "natural" or autonomous
process that has been going on throughout history, driven by an innate human desire to improve things. Research and extension have been organized to accelerate the process, not to replace it. Research and extension will likely function best if they understand the process and collaborate with it.
No part of the process can be ignored. If research and extension (or other mechanisms for accelerating innovation) ignore a function, then it will have to be accomplished by farmers themselves--and the process-will be delayed, at best.
2. The model puts Farming Systems Research and Extension in context. FSR/E deals specifically with testing (in the farming system), adaptation, and integration. It is through these functions that research and extension begin t6 come to terms with the farmer and to take advantage of the farmer dynamic-. If the R/E system does not address these functions, then farmers are on their own.
3. The TIP model presents no clear line by which research and extension can be separated. As technology becomes "tested. and adapted," the "on-farm" trial becomes virtually a demonstrationon' and as "demonstrations" turn up new data on performance of the technology or even confirm old data over a wide area and several years, they are "on-farm" trials. Thus, the research process shades into the extension process. Extension is probably most effective when it is helping farmers solve their technology problems than when it is merely instructing them from what it knows.
4.'The TIP model implies that a country can rely on the
international technology network for science and new technology alternatives. It implies even more strongly that the ITN has little to contribute from the function of testing onward.
5. The model also shows that FSR/E probably has reduced potential if left completely on its own. In other words it is heavily dependent on the processes of technology generation and science, just as science and technology must depend on it for the fruition of their efforts. FSR/E completes the research process (i.e. finishes the new technology) and initiates the extension process, giving extension a tested farmer-ready technology. FSR/E also has the potential for sending signals to the technology generation function on needs. Thus, FSR/E may have its greatest value in its capacity to condition the entire technology inaovation process, perhaps greater than its own direct contribution. Management needs to reflect this.
A-6




APPENDIX B
Economic Analysis
It-is virtually impossible to calculate the economic
benefits of a single project in research or extension. If the project is successful, most of its benefits will come after the project. Predictions that far in the future simply require too many assumptions to have much value. Still, it is possible to appreciate the economic value of technology innovation.
The economics of research has been thoroughly studied,
perhaps as thoroughly as any other investment for development. Much of this analysis is reported in: Arndt, Thomas, Dana Dalrymple, and Vernon Ruttan: 'Resource Allocation in National And International Agricultural Research; University of Minnesota Press, 1977. Some seven chapters are devoted to the economics of research. They generally indicate that "returns to a great deal of agricultural research have been two to three times higher than than returns to other agricultural investment." (p.4) No work since then seriously challenges this contention. Many of these studies are summarized in tables B-i and B-2.
Methodology of these studies has been examined closely. The arguments that returns are understated are about equal to those that returns are overstated. The challenges come from methods of handling costs and returns, more than from the analytical methodology.
'While the results of these studies give the proper
signals, they do require some explanation. These studies are ex post facto analyses dealing with indigenous technology generation as well as with imported technology. They are not accurate predictors of any one research or extension project. Rather they indicate the inherent potential in technology innovation, particularly research. The real issue, then, is not whether research is a good investment, but how can it be organized and managed so that much of its potential can be achieved.
Minimum Capacity
Many countries today are going to have to rely heavily on
imported technology. Importing technology from the international network raises the issue of national capacity. It is commonly accepted that a country needs a certain basic or minimum capacity in order to be able to take advantage of technology from the international network. Robert Evenson has done some tentative analysis of the returns to imported technology associated with the level of national capacity. It shows that the benefit stream associated with a national investment of $1,000 can be as high as $55,000 with "average indigenous research capability," compared to $1700 with "no indigenous capability." (See Arndt et al, Table 9-1, p 250.)
B-i




- This brings us to an issue that is not resolved, namely whdt consitutes a "basic, minimum national capacity." In the abse nce of definitive information, these guidelines hold that a nation can depend on the international technology network for science and much of technology generation. However, it must have its: own internal capacity for the other functions in the technology innovation process--testing, adaptation, integration, dissemination, diffusion and adoption.
Affordability
A major issue that often needs to be faced is the cost of a research program that involves site specific on-farm research and adaptation of technology to various farming systems. There are several considerations.
One is that in a donor project to build indigenous
capacity, operational efficiency is not necessarily the first test. Building capacity involves learning, both on the part of nationals and expatriates and donors. The first thing to be learned is how to be effective. Once that is learned, they must learn how to be efficient. Finally, the program must be expanded so that it can have a significant impact on the economy. Craving for efficient, economy-wide impact too quickly, can cause the process to be short-circuited with the result that none of the three are achieved. This is an important economic consideration that needs to be accomodated in your economic analysis.
(See David Korten, "Rural Development Programming: The
Learning Process Approach," Rural Development Review, Vol.ll, Mo. 2, Cornell University, 1981, for a discussion of the effectiveness, efficiency, expansion model.)
Looking first for effectiveness does not change the fact that efficiency must be achieved, and the design can anticipate and prepare for it. Long run objectives require short term planning and action.
Here are some alternatives for achieving efficiency in research organization and management.
1. In some countries it will not be efficient to have an administrative structure that reflects the two research components (national subject matter and area specific research) and the two extension components (technical liaison and support and field agents). You can save on size and structure.
Do not save by neglecting functions. You can combine
functions in fewer administrative units but not by neglecting functions. You can save by reducing the number of subject matters (or commodities) to be attended and by the number of areas, but keep all the functions for each.
B-2




Table B-i. Summary of Direct Cost-Benefit Type Studies of
Agricultural Research Productivity
Annual
Study Country Subject Period Internal
and Year Studied Rate
of Study Return
Griliches USA Hybrid maize 1940-55 35-40
(1958)
Griliches USA Hybrid sorghum 1940-57 20
(1958)
Peterson USA Poultry 1915-60 21-25
(1966)
Evenson South Africa Sugarcane 1945-62 40
(1969)
Ardito Barletta Mexico Wheat 1943-63 90
(1970)
Ardito Barletta Mexico Maize 1943-63 35
(1970)
Ayer Brazil Cotton 1924-67 77+
(1970)
Schmitz & Seckler USA Tomato harvester 1958-69
(1970). With no compensation to displaced workers 37-46
Assuming compensation for 50% earnings loss 16-28
Hines Peru Maize 1954-67
(1972) Returns to maize research only 35-40
Research plus cultivation package 50-5.5
Hayami & Akino Japan Rice .1915-50 25-27
(1975) Japan Rice 1930-61 73-75
Hertford, Ardila
Rocha & Trujillo Colombia Rice 1957-72 60-82
(1975) Colombia Soybeans 1960-71 79-96
Colombia Wheat 1953-73 11-12
Colombia Cotton 1953-72 none
Peterson &
Fitzharris USA Aggregate 1937-42 50
(1975) 1947-52 51
1957-62 49
1967-72 34
Source: Arndt, Thomas, Dana Dalrymple, and Vernon Ruttan, Editors: Resource Allocation and Productivity in National and International Agricultural Research; University of Minnesota Press, 1975, p. 5. Studies made in 1975 are reported in this volume, and reports of the other studies are cited in detail.
B-3




Table B-2. Summary of Selected Sources-of-Growth Type Studies of Agricultural Research Productivity.
Annual
Study Period Internal
and Year Country Subject Studied Rate of
of Study Return
Tang Japan Aggregate 1880-1938 35
(1963)
Griliches USA Aggregate 1949-59 35-40
(1964)
Latimer USA Aggregate 1949-59 NS*
(1964)
Peterson USA Poultry 1915-60 21
(1966)
Evenson USA Aggregate 1949-59 47
(1968)
Evenson South Africa Sugarcane 1945-58 40
(1969)
Evenson Australia Sugarcane 1945-58 50
(1969)
Evenson India Sugarcane 1945-58 60
(1969)
Ardito Barletta Mexico Crops 1943-63 45-93
(1970)
Evenson & Jha India Aggregate 1953-71 40
(1973)
Kahlon, Saxena,
Bal, & Jha India Aggregate 1960/61(1975) 1972/73 63
Source: Arndt, Thomas, Dana Dalrymple and Vernon Ruttan, Editors: Resource Allocation and Productivity in National and International Agricultural Research: University of Minnesota Press, 1975, p. 7.
Studies made in 1975 are reported in this volume and others are cited.
* Not significant
B-4




2. Intensity can be adjusted to improve efficiency.
Carried to its logical conclusion, every farm is a distinct system. No country can afford that degree of intensity. Don't strive for 100 percent effectiveness in technology adaptation. (See Perrin, Richard et al :"From Agronomy Data to Farmer* Recommendations:" CIMMYT, Information Bulletin 27, 1976. and Hildebrand, Peter, Modified Stability Index ..... )
3. In many countries there is no numerical shortage of extension personnel. Many on-farm testing activities normally associated with research can be done by extension. Shifting some responsibility from research to extension facilitates the technology innovation process and is con sistent with traditional extension responsibility. This shift has great potential for increasing efficiency of the system.
4. Specific attention to minimum capacity can also be an efficiency measure. In cases it is likely to be more efficient to develop and manage a system for importing of technology than it is to attempt a quasi "go-it-alone" strategy..
5. There may be others. For example, some problems have more generalized solutions than others, some commodities or subject matters have a wider adaptation than others, some technologies are simpler to adapt to site than others, some technologies have far greater payoff than others and can pay for more intensity.
Analysis
You can do two types of calculations that will help get
some idea of the likely economic value of the project. These are calculations. They may be useful in analysis but cannot really be considered analytical since they have to assume, estimate, or project the future. The calculations will however, give you insights on the order of magnitude of investment and return you are dealing with.
1. One method is to estimate as carefully as you can the economic value of what could reasonably be expected from the project. These estimates, of course, are extremely tentative. Even if you can estimate future production, you still have the task of allocating cause to this project. Another problem you face is how to deal with "consumer surplus," if this and other efforts were to be effective in keeping food costs down or even lowering them from current levels. This is an important item and is a major justification of public investment in agricultural research and extension.
2. Another approach is to set an acceptable goal for an internal rate of return to estimated costs. This approach eliminates the need to do an a priori estimate of the benefits of a project. An example excerpted from the Caribbean Extension Project Paper is given on page 6.
3-5




EXAMPLE
To handle the uncertainty of appropriate internal rates of return and likely time horizon for benefit realization, two possible annual benefit levels are given to illustrate the most likely range. The following assumptions are used in alternatives I and II.
Alternative I Alternative II
1. The project has a useful 1. The project has a useful life
life of 20 years. of 15 years.
2. The opportunity cost of 2. The opportunity cost of
capital is 12%. capital isl5%.
3. The majority of costs are 3. The majority of costs are
incurred during the first incurred during the first
five years. five years.
4. The benefits begin in year 4. The benefits begin in year 3 2'at 1/3 of eventual annual at 1/3 of the eventual annual
benefit level, increase to benefit level, increase to
1/2 in year 3, increase to 1/2 in year 4, to 3/4 in year
2/3 in year 4, and reach 5, and reach full level by
full level by year 5 and year 6 and remain constant
constant through year 20. through year 15.
No inflation factor is used in estimating costs, and hence the benefits must be interpreted as constant dollars as well. The results of the cost benefit analyses are given in Tables VII and VIII.
Total public sector investment in agriculture was estimated at $12.5 million in 1978. With increased emphasis on agricultural investments in numerous development organizations, IBRD expects this level of investment to increase over-time. The annual benefits needed to realize the internal rates of returns to investment in alternatives I and II represent 7 dand 10 percent of thiss annual public sector investment, respectively. Increased net income of farmers as a result of improved extension delivery of known technology onlymight reasonable be expected to account for one-half of the annual benefit levels derived from alternatives I and II. In this case, the project would have to increase the effectiveness of public agricultural investments by
4 to 5 percent of the 1978 level. Since these investlments particularly from donor agencies seem likely to increase in constant dollars through time, one-half of this extension project benefits would represent less than 4 percent of these investments.
A small increase of less than 4 percent in efficiency of these programs through a more effective extension service seems attainable. First,the extension program will focus on the delivery of research from CARDI, WINBAN, CARDATS, UWI, and the
B-6




various research programs of the ministeries of agriculture. Second, the credit program of the CDB ought to be more effective by extension trainingof farmers to be awareof credit availability and use as well as receiving farner feedback on credit problems. Third, several commodity schemes in various islands are employing extension workers whose increaseld effectiveness ought to return benefits to these program investments as well. Fourth, a sound extension program should assist in the identification, planning, and implementation of new agricultural programs.
If one-half of the benefits are attributed to improving
farmer net income through known technology, this would amount to $460,000 to $665,000 per year by year five and six respectively for alternatives I and II. This would entail improving net incomes on an average three-acre farm by $50 an acre for 3,000 to 4,000 farmers each year, of 73,000 such farmers. This seems to be a reasonable achievement. Better trained, motivated, and equipped extension workers should be in the field working by years five and six with at least this many farmers. Fertilizer demonstrations and recommendations, more effective disease identification and remedies, and more economic management practices ought to increase farmers' income by the required amounts to pay back $460,000 to $665,000 in constant dollars per year especially with increased incomes expected from new technology derived from the research activities underway and being planned.
Given the critical role the extension service must play in extending technology being developed, helping farmers increase incomes from known technology and improving public program investment efficiency, the returns shown to be necessary seem to be attainable.
B- 7




TABLE VII
BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS USING ALTERNATIVE ASSUMPTION I
(in constant US. $)
Year Annual Cost of DPV of Benefit Stream DPV of
Project Project Benefits
costs
(- thousand US$- )
1 890.5 890.5
2 1,285.3 1,147.8 0.33 x .30 x
3 1,392.7 1,110.0 0.50 x .40 x
4 1,257.1 895.1 0.67 x .48 x
5 1,249.2 794.5 x .64 x
6 187.1 106.1 x .57 x
7 187.1 94.9 x .51 x
8 187.1 84.6 x .45 x
9 187.1 75.6 x .40 x
10 187.1 67.5 x .36 x
11 187.1 60.2 x .32 x
12 187.1 53.7 x .29 x
13 187.1 48.1 x .26 x
14 187.1 42.8 x .23 x
15 187.1 38.4 x .18 x
16 187.1 34.2 x .16 x
17 187.1 30.5 x .15 x
18 187.1 27.3. x .13 x
19 187.1 24.3 x .12 x
20 187.1 21.7
5,647.8 6.16 x
B
- =1=6.16 x
C5647.8
x = 5647.8 916.9
6.16
B-8




TABLE VIII
BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS USING ALTERNTIVE ASSUMPTION II
(in constant US $)
Year Annual Cost of DVP of Benefit Stream DPV of
Project Project Benefits
costs
(- thousand $-)
1 890.5 890.5
2 1,285.3 1,118.2
3 1,392.7 1,052.9 .33 x .23 x
4 1,257.1 827.2 .50 x .33 x
5 1,249.2 714.5 .75 x .43 x
6 199.2 99 x .50 x
7 199.2 86.1 x .43 x
8 199.2 74.9 x .38 x
9 199.2 65.1 x .33 x
10 199.2 56.6 x .28 x
11 199.2 49.2 x .25 x
12 199.2 42.8 x .22 x
13 199.2 37.3 x .19 x
14 199.2 32.5 x .16 x
15 199.2 28.1 x .14 x
5,174.9 3.89 x
B
--1 3.89 x
C 5,174.9
x = 5,174.9 = 1,330
3.89
B-9




Appendix C
The Logical Framework
The Logical Framework (Log Frame) is a model that helps you organize your own thoughts and provides a common ground for communication among all of the personnel involved in a project. The Log Frame displays, in matrix form, the project's means-end heirarchy along with associated measures, means of verification, and necessary assumptions regarding factors not under control of project personnel. The matrix form is shown in Figure C-i. Its size will vary with your needs.
Figure C-I. The Logical Framework (Log Frame)
Objectively Means
:arrative Verifiable of Important
Summary Indicators Verification Assumptions
Project Goal:
Purpose:
Outputs:
Inputs:
"Logical" indicates that the items must be related to each other in a manner that stands the test of sound reasoning. The inputs must be such that the outputs are achieved, and if t-,j outputs are achieved they in turn will accomplish the purpose.
C-i




Logical or not, competent workers will often construct the matrix in-ways different from each other. It may be helpful for you to use as examples other Log Frames considered good. But do not hesitate to trust your own reasoning if it shows that each item will likely achieve the next higher item. Faulty Log Frames seldom result from the inability of designers to reason. Problems most often occur because designers do not take the Log Frame seriously and apply their reasoning to it.
The project design personnel have the greatest
responsibility in dealing with the Log Frame. They are the ones who have to produce it. Implementers and evaluators use it as a guide to their work. If the designers do a good job, it becomes exceptionally useful to those who follow.
Project Goal is an overall or general objective to which the project will make a contribution. It is seldom logical to expect it to be achieved either by the project alone or during the duration of the project. It does serve as a North Star type of orientation for the project.
Project Pups becomes more specific, and the project can
be expected to make measurable progress toward achieving it. It is still broad, however, and a research or extension project will not likely complete its contribution to the purpose during the life of the project. This type of project needs to address institution building issues and aim for an impact or effect that will be sustainable. No project can complete the. institution building process and completely achieve the purpose. However, you can expect progress that is both recognizable and measurable, and you need to design with those ends in view.
Often the outputs become the indicators of progress toward purpose. You need to think it through carefully, however, to be sure that it is logical and useful to do so.
Project Outputs are the project working objectives. They
can often be counted, (number of persons trained; number of teams working with numbers of farmers). However, there are quality measures as well. These are difficult to "objectively verify." Try to develop some "objectively verifiable indicators" of quality. The existence and quality of work plans and how closely they were followed may be such an indicator. The use of objectives in management may be another. Brainstorming for a few minutes by the design team will come up with other indicators. Incidentally, evaluation teams can suggest additional indicators.
Inputs include commodities, training, and technical
assistance personnel provided by the donor and can be measured in dollar terms as well as other terms. Technical assistance, for example, can be indicated by subject matter and by length of service. This section can be used to indicate some general strategies. It can be very specific. Being specific indicates care in planning and need not be regarded as so rigid that project implementation management has limited room to manage.
C-2




Inputs should also account for host country contributions to the project, either through the host institution or other avenues.
Assumptions
Assumptions cause the most trouble in a Log Frame. What is recorded is not as important as facing the question: "What has to happen in areas over which project management has no control for the project to be successful?" There are many hazards, some caused by pressure on the host institution from other donor projects, at times from the same donor.
Two errors are common in Log Frame assumptions. One of them virtually amounts to assuming away important problems or hazards to the project. Assuming the host government will make equipment, personnel, and funds available on a timely basis is one such case. Under severe resource constraints exacerbated at times by donor presssure, host institutions simply cannot meet these obligations, and experience in the country demonstrates that it cannot. Assuming that it will is an error.
Another common error is to assume certain factors that should be under the control of or influenced by either the project or the donor. By the time that the project is put in its final form, some conditions that you needed to assume in project development should have been attended to.
It is not reasonable to assume, for example, that
coordinationn and cooperation will continue between research and extension." If such coordination is precarious, then the project should address it. This is an item critical to institutional development and to success of the project.
Assuming success of project elements is not logical. For
example, "small farmer research will be improved through training provided by project" or "effectiveness of extension will be improved by training and vehicles the project provides" ar.e specific variables the project addresses. They do not logically fit in assumptions.
If host institution contribution is likely to be a real problem, it needs to be specifically addressed, either in the project or by donor-host government interaction as an extraproject activity. It cannot be assumed away.
Don't hesitate to write "No assumptions necessary."
C-3




working draft #3
Appendix D
Technical Liaison and Support Staff in Extension
(This section prepared by J.B. Claar, INTERPAKS, University of Illinois)
An adequate, effective corps of Technical Liaison and Support Personnel is essential. Extension must be able to reach out to all knowledge sources to acquire inputs. And extension, to the extent necessary, must have the internal capability to acquire and help adapt technology for use by its clients. Farming Systems Research projects which emphasize testing and demonstrations can make extension's job easier in this regard. In order to take advantage of this opportunity, technical liaison, as contrasted with administrative liaison, is essential, including liaison on research projects. Extension can help in fact, needs to help in its own self interest with field aspects of research, from identifying problems to testing technology. Research and extension have a vested interest in each other. Neither can accomplish its task without the other, and both need to set up liaison mechanisms for the other to plug into. Therefore, research and extension services need to remember that solving the research-extension gap requires transactions-each giving as well as receiving (Claar and Watts 1984).
Extension and research share the technology innovation continuum and when the pressure for results is on, it is easy to suggest that the other end of the continuum has failed. Too, the two organizations may be canpeting for scarce dollars with great pressure on each to assure its independent identity. However, the more general problem sees to be that countries may not appreciate the whole continuum, thus leaving the sum of
the functions poorly attended.
It should be easy to sell these two organizations, each in its own self interest, to help each other do its job. Recognition of mutual interest is the starting point and an essential condition for successful linkage. Projects should be designed to make such self-interest obvious and liaison and support not only expected but easy. Support in extension has two meanings in this context. Support for research by involvement in all aspects of farmers' contact for research projects. But as significant as this is, the need for support of field staff within extension is equally critical to performance. In fact, such Technical Liaison and Support Staff (saetimes called extension specialists) are at one time a primary source
of content, training, backstopping, and quality control.
It may not be an overstatement to say that many countries discovered the importance of field extension and implemented it without an equally
firm understanding of the parallel need for support. Whatever the reason, it now seems time to correct the imbalance where it exists and to develop a complete extension system with the capacity to place greater emphasis on content.
D-1




FIGURE I.. AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH- EXTENSION CONTINUUM
GLOBAL BASE SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
IIdLIBASI
STOCK GENERATIONIz TESTING ADAPTING INTEGRATION Z DISSiENI- DIFIO
ORCLUR%'RESEARCH 0 EEAIN AIN- ADOPTION
IOWEj 19I. IoI
IZ
A,~ IU
-- -b eedback laoop
0. 0. dilfwional feedback path




Full Text

PAGE 1

Planner Decides to Make DELTA Planner Chart for Project Draw First Level iDELTA Chart for Planner Most Probable List All Project Sequence Objectives of Activities Planner Planner Planner Plan Project List All Major Events Schedule and Milestones. Planner Planner Plan All Possible Review Project Approaches to Project Schedule With Regard to lObjectives Planner List All Possible Schedule Activities for Not Adequate Each Approach P n Schedule Planner Planner OK Revise Project List All Decisions Planner Schedule to be Made Add Alternative Activity Sequences Planner to DELTA Chart List All Information Required to Make OR Decisions Planner Check Assignment OR of Responsibilities Planner Review Activities With Regard to Planner Assignmentb Information to Not Acceptable be Developed Assignment for Decision OK -Planner Making Revise Assignment 1 z of Responsibilitiesi Plnner Activities OR Not Adequate Activities Adequate Planner Planner First Level DELTA ORevise Activities Add Activity, Event Chart Complete Planner List and Decision Identification Planner 1 Codes to DELTA CatReview Activities, Events, and Decisions R With Regard to .Meeting Objectives Planner Add Time Information Second Level DELTA to Activity, Event, Chart Complete Plan Not Adequate and Decision Symbols Adequate Planner Revise Activities, Third Level DELTA Events, and Decisions Chart Complete As Required Fig.6. DELTA thart of making I)Fl .I'A chart. G-4



PAGE 1

PROJECT HANDBOOK RESEARCH AND EXTENSION (Emphasizing Fanning Systems Research and Extension) Fanning Systems Support Project University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 February 1985



PAGE 1

CHAPTER III PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Purpose of this chapter is to present considerations for use by donors who are developing projects in agricultural research and extension (R/E). A. R/E in Country Strategy 1. A publicly supported R/E program serves the specific purpose of providing of providing technology by which more product can be produced with the same resources or the same product can be produced with less resource use, at the same time protecting the nation's natural resources. 2. Economic analysis is not necessary to justify an R/E project. Much evidence indicates the potential value of research and extension. (See Appendix B.) Further, there is little evidence that development occurs in any country in any economic sector without innovation in the technology used by producers. Finally, history indicates that technology innovation is not likely in agriculture without a publicly supported R/E'effort. The economic issue, then, is to develop, design, and implement a project that will help the Host Country realize the economic potential of research and extension. 3. Virtually every LDC has an overwhelming need for assistance in developing its own basic national capacity in research and extension, a long-lasting, indigenous capacity to deal with the technology problems of agriculture. This includes the capacity to take charge of and manage the national R/E program, including those components financed by donors. This basic capacity can be modest, well within the ability of most countries to afford it, with proper planning and implementation. 4. Other institutional capacities are needed to./deal with policy, markets, and infrastructure. Inadequacies in/those systems will limit what can be expected from improvements in the R/E System. It is not necessary, however, to delay development of the R/E system until other institutional systems are adequate. Several institutional systems can be under developmen t at the same time. 5. The potential of a project can be enhanced by extraproject activities. Two will be most helpful. I!I-I



PAGE 1

host institution colleagues, including top management. One of the most useful means to establish this rapport is to develop an identity with the host institution, until team members can feel the problems, the frustrations, and the aspirations of the institution as well as those of individuals. This identity helps, project success and makes service on the project more interesting and more satisfying to the team. Once a rapport is established many possibilities Open up. It will be a rare case in which the host institution does not have serious management problems. Once there is rapport, those problems can be discussed and faced objectively. Until then, little is to be gained by offering help in management. With rapport, you can also help host institution management search for funds among donors for its own purposes. To the extent the institution takes initiative in seeking funds for specific developmental purposes according to its own criteria it has a say in its own destiny. The host institution may be able to use the presence of your project and your counsel to improve its chances. You can also deal with problems of linkages. It is in the interest of a research entity, for example, for extension to have some assistance to increase its ability to link with research. .The potent ial for your team helping establish these linkages is likely to be considerably greater than is at first evident. Perhaps the biggest opportunity is to help the host institution with its management problems. That is dealt with below. L. Host Institution Management Host institution mana-ement is much more demanding than it is for counterpart institutions in developed countries. Every manager has the responsibility to maintain and build the organization, at the same time being responsible for operations or production. In mature organizations the building-maintenance responsibility is much lighter than it is in new or inadequate organizations. Host institution managers are faced with enormous tasks in developing their institutions, and they operate under serious national resource constraints. Donor funds often come with conditions and for purposes which fit donor criteria rather than host country needs and interests. The upshot is that many LDC managers find themselves supervising routines without much real chance or resource that will enable them to manage. Your project can help, but results will come slowly and will not be dramatic. There are some things you need not do. You cannot manage. That does not solve anything beyond the immediate need. You cannot advise, except in minor matters. Advice from expatriates is likely to be based on criteria and premises that are not relevant. The most effective thing you can do is counsel as they work out their own management solutions, V-13



PAGE 1

a. One is to include R/E issues in the continuing policy dialogue with host government, particularly investment in research and extension and institutional development. No matter how effective are the Host Institution and the implementing team in addressing these issues, the donor can make them more effective. b. The second is to seek collaboration of other donors to help protect the basic national capacity that you are helping to build. Many donor projects press on national capacity and tend to dissipate it, rather than build it. B. Identify and Defend Host Country Interests Donors must work through projects which must obey certain specific criteria. It is not automatic that these criteria will be consistent with Host Country interests. A donor project can actually work at cross-purposes to genuine, long-term country interests. Although specifics vary, some general statements can be made. 1. A major national interest is to have an indigenous capacity to develop, maintain, and manage an effective technology program. This institutional need represents a major donor opportunity, an opportunity far greater than that offered by projects designed for short-run specific production goals. A mix of donor projects, each-following its own criteria, is piece meal and tends to press on fragile Host Country capacity and fragment it, rather than to help build it. Thus, the effectiveness of investments in research and extension are reduced', and they could actually work against Host Country interests. This handbook assumes that donor projects have a specific interest in the development and strengthening of Host County capacity. 2. Host Countries do need help in developing their basic national capacity, and most projects can provide it, even if there are short-term, direct action objectives involved. Capacity building is essentially a function of management. Management components can be included in projects at relatively, little cost. Capital costs, except for training or human resource development, are minimal. Technical assistance is most needed and can be provided by short term/~personnel. For example, one of the great needs 'of RIE institutions is for strategic planning, which needs to be done by Host Institution management and personnel and over considerable time. This component could be designed into a project at little cost, to take place over the life of the project, and the results would be far more useful than plans done in a matter of weeks with exceptionally heavy pa rticipation of an expatriate team. 111-2



PAGE 1

Below is a simple format to help think through the objectives, to standardize presentation, and to help communicate to donor, evaluation teams, host institution, and others who want to understand your project. Modify it or devise one for your own purpose. Objectives Date to Factors Factors Actions Achieve Hinderina Helping Intended Progress Progress You can use the objective chart in making presentations to the evaluation teams or in evaluating their evaluations. This handbook suggest (1) that evaluation teams use team objective statements in their evaluations and (2) that they encourage selfevaluation as part of the effort. In identifying and evaluating factors hindering and factors helping, you are using a management technique known as "Force Field Analysis." You can use brainstorming and group discussion techniques to make the two lists of factors. Group discussion can be used in -analysis, but more study may-be needed. You also need to identify and analyze the alternatives you have for. action. Finally, you need to decide on actions and program them, in a strategy for strengthening or taking advantage of the factors that help and removing or attenuating the factors that hinder, I'. Managing Evaluations Evaluations are important episodes in the life of a project and can be used to enhance project management. They can be used to show off your accomplishments and need not be a cause of worry or dread. Your own attitude is critical. It permeates everything you do, and it shows through to all observers and helps create the general image of your project. That "general image" is important in that it in turn helps create-the expectations, both of the donor and the evaluators, of what will result from the evaluation. Psychologists have long held that what people expect to find helps determine what they do find. The external image will likely be related to the team's own image, and thus expectations. Certainly, a team's expectations of itself has important influence on its own performance. Two guidelines are important. Take charge of the project, including evaluation, and develop and demonstrate a positive mental attitude. V-9



PAGE 1

Other National Entities Other National Central Ag. Res. Nationa l Regional ntti Dl Centers Research Inno a Research Entities AID CRSP's, Programs Progra s Research, Support Projects Projects Extenl'on Extasj Speciahst Field Group Age = Referral response function International Technology Innovation Network



PAGE 1

E. The Macro-Environment The technology innovation system is but one system serving the larger purpose of agricultural development, and performance of the "other systems has a great influence on the potential impacts of Research and Extension interventions. Three "other" systems are of particlar relevance. 1. The policy structure is one. Among the relevant policy issues are price ceilings and supports, exchange rates, importexport policies, land tenure, and Researth and Extension investment. 2. The commercial system is another. There must be a demand for the farmer's product and facilities and institutions to handle it. On the other hand certain vital inputs in which much of technology is embodied must be available. 3. The third is the infrastructure system, internal transportation, plu *s irrigation, ports, processing and storage facilities, and others. The effectiveness of research and extension is considerably reduced beyond the area served by a minimum infrastructure. While of extreme importance to FSR/E, the potential of FSRIE managers in correcting defects in these systems is limited. Donors in "extra-project" activity have some potential. Here are some actions FSR/E management can take. 1. It must concern itself with policies regarding investment in research and extension. 2. It can communicate with other systems regarding farmer needs. The need for inputs involved in technology adoption can be communicated to the market, as can needs for certain imports. 3. Knowledge and understanding of the farmer can be communicated. If national production goals are to be met, they must be translatable, and translated, into farmer goals, and they must accomodate farmer constraints. FSR/E can help with this task. 4. Knowledge of opportunities made possible by technology innovation can be communicated and explained. New technology often creates policy options as well as production options. 5. Where nothing can be done to correct defects, R/E strategy must adapt to the macro-environment, both in the short and long run. 11-6



PAGE 1

Fig. III-la. Activity Assignments between Research and Extension, By Functions of the Technology Innovation Process Technology Innovation Process World Tech Stock Science Tech Tech Tech Tech Tech Dfusn Knoldg Genratn Testng Adapttn Nttgratn Dsmnatn Adoptn I I I I I I \ Area-Specific / E Subject Matter \ Research / / f Research \ / Technical/ f L\ /iaison & / Field o / Support Extension r / tE / / T Units to which Assigned Fig. Ill-lb. Activity Assignments between Research and Extension, By Functions of the Technology Innovation Process. Technology Innovation Process World Stock Science Tech Tech Tech Tech Tech Dfusn Knoldq_ Research Genratn Testng Adapttn Ntgratn Dsmnatn Adoctn I II II aR X c t i V i t yE T Unit Receiving Assignment 111-4



PAGE 1

G. Paper Preparation 1. Develop your own outline. You can do this independently or in collaboration with the donor. Or you can use the outline in this set of guidelines, revised as you and the donor decide is needed. 2. During the team briefing you need to do some organization of the team and make a preliminary plan of work. The team leader is responsible and should take charge. He should also get considerable participation of the team. 3.1Make an effort to base your design on objective models and knowledge gained from research and published. Do not downplay the judgment of the team or the experience of team members. At the same time you need to show that there are sound logical and empirical bases for your design--that you are not completely dependent on the intuition, biases, and experiences of a group assembled for this task. Models will help you do this. Some items useful in this regard are included in this package. They include. a. The Technology Innovation Process Model b. The Research Organization Matrix c. The International Technology Innovation Network See Appendix H d. Assignment of Responsibility, Research and Extension e. Tables on Returns to Research, Appendix B f. The Logical Framework, Appendix C These can be included in one or more annexes, and referred to in various places in the text. 4. Some analyses will likely still be needed in addition to that done in the process of project development or before you nrrive.Two types of needs will be important from time to time. One type is that you need to help with project design. The other is simply to show that the project and the design is justified. Deciding on the analyses to do will require some analysis itself. Note the analyses suggested in Appendix C and get agreement with the donor on which analyses you will be expected to do. Getting some work done before your team arrives in country may be helpful, but it is necessary to get agreement on what they are and how they are to be carried out. You could end up with a lot of work and material that serves no useful purpose. I V-23



PAGE 1

literature references. This section also is under development, and if you have suggestions for material to be included, please let us hear about it. There are alternatives for organization of the book, if you have a preference, please let FSSP hear. Each chapter is oriented to a specific situation and is specifically relevant to a team or group. Other chapters are relevant. The book is cumulative, in the sense that a team working on any one phase is expected to be familiar with those chapters dealing with earlier phases. In some cases and for some purposes, teams will need to be familiar with the chapters on succeeding phases. E. Farming Systems Research and Extension (FSR/E) FSR/E is a term used widely and with many meanings, all legitimate. In order that all the different usages can be accomodated, this book does not apply a strict definition of FSR/E. There are two basic criteria for FSR/E, which can be considered as minimum criteria. One is that the problems that research and extension work on, and the technology they deal with, are selected on an adequate base of knowledge and understanding of the relevant systems of farming. The second is that technology innovations proposed are tested (a) in the farming system(s) in which they are expected to perform and (b) by criteria of those systems. All countries, no matter how severe their resource constraints, can adopt the FSR/E approach, using this simplified concept. At the same time, countries can add such criteria as the multi-disciplinary approach and wholistic approach to the extent their resources allow. A central theme of this handbook is that FSR/E is an integral part of the general R/E process. This means that until FSR/E is worked into the R/E process, that process is incomplete and inadequate. It also means that FSR/E is not a substitute or replacement for other components of the R/E process. This explains why this handbook is really oriented to research and extension, not simply FSR/E. Since FSR/E is integral to research and extension, and since research and extension are incomplete without FSR/E, there is no logical way to deal with FSR/E out of the R/E context. There is also no logical way to deal with R/E that does not embody the FSR/E characteristics. Some workers in fact, hold FSR/E to mean the total R/E process conditioned by the FSR/E approach. F. The Farming System The farming system also is not strictly defined. "System" is a tricky concept. There all sorts of systems and sub-systems surrounding a farm and the farm family. A user must define the system for the specific task at hand, and FSR/E workers have defined a wide range of systems. 1-3



PAGE 1

B. Use time between successful proposal and actual project start up for pre-implementation management activities that will facilitate project implementation. C. Various criteria need to be applied in team member selection, not simply experience and technical capability. D. You are completely dependent on the team you put in the field--and the families. Don't cut corners in orienting and preparing the team for the assigment. Be lavish with the information you supply. If you do not have it, get it. E. The team needs a professional orientation in addition to the general orientation it needs along with the family members. F. Take time and invest some resources in setting up the backstop structure and administration. It will pay off. G. Identify closely with the host institution and seek its help in field initiation of team and organization of your work. Keep team visibility low. Blend in as much as you can. H. No matter how good the analysis, the design, and the work that preceded you and the team, the project is now your responsibility. Have your objectives clear in terms that make sense -to you. Use these objectives to manage both individual and team effort. And take charge. I. Anticipate evaluations from the start. If the evaluation plan was well done, you can use it for your own management. Document your efforts, your results, and your rationale. Don't hesitate to use your own criteria and explain them to the evaluation team. Develop a positive project image. Face problems squarely and solve them; don;t dwell on them in converstation. Finally be able to explain the project fully and clearly. IJ. If your project is adding a new component to either research or extension, seek the ways it can be helpful, identify with other positive things going on, and make the new component helpful, especially to those who feel threatened without any real basis for the fears. K. Go the extra mile. Keep host institution needs in mind and do what is reasonable to help out even beyond the requirements of the contract. Few projects are successful when the implementation team worries only about its contract responsibilities. L. A major need of the host institution is to improve its management. You can't be pushy, but as you and host institution management identify needs, you will find that with a little imagination you can help out much more than is at first apparent. Don't expect to achieve dramatic results and impact and do not attempt to push host institution management farther and faster than it is prepared to move. Os -4



PAGE 1

IEFF TRANSACTIONS ON I.'NGINELVINt; MANAGUINILN't', NOVIABLR 197t Wet.. ft g SCL Act. IA b411 g J. Ceeep... A. C-1.1. ket A"... 0-1-sy. e-e See. KL -41= ICL seeatt-5.06. ftewe..f I.". CAM Ole to 301ISeeeol.. ICL P.: 4111,91, 1.2 ftfWIP.N.L. wee'd eIP 3-ft"Ifieee T.#t. SCL KL ICL a LteeptCarol 44. 21.6.9.6 t .4 41-6.1.6 too MI=X I..* 4'eee 4.= Poe, 61WL 9caw kz 114.0. to CI_ ." 3 03.9 P.. Ctwt.. eees M..4 fees M ft .4.g IKC L .0 WLU Co.* 6... 111", '** KA, &.So" IWet, to-cl... Aoqr. .y so Tw. We. MCI t.1 .1 "' t_ t" D.C.#.... I-.-. to. am C-ey fte WCI_ u.t.4.0 Ab-4 30 CS... "L i KL as ft.eeetKI.L_ C y Co.. 20-CsOC,-* act 1.10 6CL ft."-W. AM @.ofso-clI.s. "a" U.&M"s "to --7 2-1-1. T." fteeeks. tempteeeeet.42" OCL me as soeedi" Boom SCL ocL I ft. .IGet. 9-1" f_'t_& 0.9 to C"A.. ftee.Coemps... ?"Ikeeei"td S.1-4 L ...... 14 T." C"s.. 01-1 to f'.i.-romC AM C"&.. 11-ift. syas sweeest" ft foommooeoie M."'goI.. oeeeeee. t.14 S.'" to" q... a.-go. twt.,t -9-. Feet-ftb.t."Seee coeee .0 wth". ICL -3 ftdt.: n ftsqm&w. -Gleemp to WL 1.19 Fig. 7. Example DFLTA chart fin rewarch prograin. G_



PAGE 1

D. The Technology Innovation Process FSR/E is commonly associated with field teams who concentrate on on-farm testing, adaptive research, and integration of technology into farming systems. The FSR/E potential can be greatly enhanced by fitting it into the total technology innovation process (TIP) and by relating it closely to the other functions serving that same process. FSR/E can literally condition the entire process. The TIP is presented in some detail in Apendix A. The model shows the process as a linear process, from left to right. In practice, however, the process has feedback loops, and it can start with a problem or an opportunity which can be identified in any one of the functions. Technology Innovation Process World Tech Tech Tech Tech Tech Diffuse Stock Science Genera Testng Adapt Ntegra Disemna & Knoldg tion ation tion tion Adopt FSR/E concentrates on the functions of testing, adaptation, integration, and dissemination. Research operates on the left end of the TIP and can easily stop, and often does, before the technology is "finished." Extension, operating on the right, often starts its activities too late. FSR/E fills the gap, and both the research entity and the extension entity have a genuine self-interest and even a responsibilty to work in this area, each serving its own purpose FSR/E sends messages to the left for the kind of technology farmers need generated. If the national system can not respond, very often the international system can. At the same time FSR/E "finishes" the technology for the right end of the continuum and familiarizes extension with it. FSR/E facilitates the establishment of research and extension linkages. Some experts maintain that it is not FSR/E if it does not. This results from the similarity between the onfarm testing and adaptation methodology of research and the demonstration methodology of extension; from the experimental nature of the farmer; from linkages FSR/E helps build with the farmer; from the farm-tested, "finished" technology that research makes available to extension; and from the fact both are working in the same process for the same end. Countries can depend heavily on imported technology. They must have a basic national capacity, however, in order to be able to import technology effectively. The ability to test technology and to make minor modifications is part of that basic capacity. Another part is the ability to know what to import. The international network cannot provide these services. 11-5



PAGE 1

Only one gui deline is critical. The lines showing task assignments and organizational responsibilities must slant across the technology innovation functions. Joint participation in a function will greatly facilitate research and extension linkage. "Joint participation" does not mean "duplication of activities." There are various activities and roles involved in any of the functions, and some of them are best suited to research, others to extension. The model and this line drawing exercise could serve as a topic for a seminar that involved both research and extension management. Such a meeting would help achieve concensus on project objectives. It would tend to emphasize technical and management considerations, real live problems, and it would facilitate participation of host country personnel. Research and extension management have to draw these lines. Use Fig. IV-lb to draw lines that seem appropriate for your country. The following discussion may be helpful. 2. Understand the functional assignments needed. The functions of the TIP model must be translated into activities, assigned to specific units of the R/E entities, and reflected in job descriptions. Four essential,' activity assignments are identified. Some of them can vary c .onsiderably in scope and intensity. Some can be combined and assigned to one unit. In no case, however, can the functional assignments be neglected. Four activity assignments are identified: Area-specific Research National Subject Matter Research Technical Liaison and Support Field Extension a. Area-specific Research Area-specific research responsibilities are: +To know and understand the farmer and his production system or systems; +To report problems and constraints and explain them to national subject matter research; +To test promising technologies in the farming systems; +To modify or help modify the technology to improve its fit in the farming system and adapt it to other farming systems; and IV-3



PAGE 1

CHAPTER VI Evaluation Research and Extension Projects A. Introduction: Primary audience for this chapter is the evaluation team and contracting entity, although some of the information will be useful to both the donor and the implementing team and in discussions between the evaluation team and its clients. There are several types of evaluations. This handbook assumes a mid-project evaluation which has the main purpose of helping the donor to understand project progress and to make decisions regarding project direction, process, and design. The donor is the primary client of an evaluation. Expect that donor personnel know a great deal about the project and have been conducting a continuous de facto evaluation. In most cases the donor provides a scope of work for the evaluation and may also identify problems or other issues that need attention. In some cases the donor will provide criteria, but in many cases it is up to the, team to select and apply the criteria. While the donor is the main client, these guidelines aim for the evaluation to be useful for the implementation tea'm and even for the host institution. To serve these three audiences it is useful for the evaluation team to take a positive attitude and develop an empathy for the three involved. Empathy and a positive attitude will serve the evaluation team well on other accounts. In most evaluations the project has not had time to generate definitive impacts, especially if persistence is one of the criterion for impact. This means that evaluators must rely heavily on judgments and inferences in trying to project the probable impact of project strategy and activities. Data will be difficult to come by, and much of the data that can be accumulated must be interpreted. It will not be straightforward. The only way the team can handle the data and develop expectations of its probable significance is to rely heavily on judgment and intuition. That involves considerable risk. One way to make that risk manageable is to approach the task with empathy for the actors in the situation in which they are working. It is -useful to keep in mind the purpose of the evaluation. It is not to find and publish the ultimate truth, or to establish error and place blame. It is to help improve project management and execution, and the key for that is the implementation team. The more successful evaluators are in establishing rapport with that team the more likely their recommendations will be effective. A DOSitive attitude and empathy are useful devices in establishing t at rapport. VI-1



PAGE 1

Think in terms of basic national capacity, and the need to define it or determine it for a specific country. More on this below. Basic national capacity depends on the ccountry. It seems to be a common tendency to attemp to create a complete R/E system for a country, no matter what the resource base. Such is not possible for many countries. Nor is it-necessary. Countries can depend on the international network for many functions and can do so indefinitely. This dependence needs to be accomodated in the strategy, however. If not managed, it will not be systemmatic and effective. A useful analytical device is the technology transfer model developed by Hyami and Ruttan in Agricultural Development: An International Perspective. D. Early Impact--Visibility It is conventional wisdom that developing a research program and a research institution is a long run task. If donors and governments are impatient, they will not sustain an efffort long enough for it to catch root and survive. Impatience, in other words, precludes success. No evidence challenges this proposition. However, it is not completely accurate, at least in implication. The long run view of institutional development does-not preclude the need and possibility of achieving an early impact. An institution is more akin to a muscle, which is developed by practice and exercise, than it is to a factory which is built in one time period to be used in a subsequent period. A research institution is built by doing what a research program is supposed to do in support of agricultural development. With proper planning and management, research can have a short term impact that actually improves its long time efforts rather than diverting resources from them. An early impact can be used to gain respect for the research entity in the government and to encourage its own personnel, both of which are important components of institution building. Early impact will often require technology from the international technology network as well as personnel. The process is an adaptation of the FSR/E process. The first step is to characterize an area--its ecology, its farming systems, and it problems and resources. The next step is to determine which of known technologies would have the highest probability of fitting needs and giving a payoff. That technology is then tested, adaptations are made, in the FSR/E on-farm research mode. When it passes this test, it is promoted in a small area. If it passes that test it goes on to a full-fledged campaign. Production programs are usually associated with extension, with inadequate attention being given to thorough and adequate testing and needed adaptation. Extension can not perform well with inadequately tested technology. J II-5



PAGE 1

2. Use objectives to facilitate evaluation. Skillful use of objectives can greatly facilitate both evaluation and management. Objectives can serve as the conceptual glue that binds many project components together and coordinates activities so that a single project results. It is clear that the design team cannot set realistic objectives for the implementation team. Project design can encourage the implementation team to develop useful working objectives, and it can facilitate the development of those objectives. All of this will facilitate both management and evaluation of the project. The design team can set some provisional or tentative objectives and can suggest a simple format that can be used from design through implementation and evaluation. The design team can use objectives to set the parameters of the project. Finally, it can design the project so that objective setting becomes useful in the donor's monitoring and the contractor's implementation. It is common for a donor to require annual plans of work in a project. Objectives are essential to good plans, of work and can safely be emphasized. Here is a simple format that you can use or modify. It is a simple form that can thread through the entire project, being used by the implementer and the evaluation team. If the design and'implementation team uses it, that should be a great encouragement to the evaluation team to use it. Objectives Target Factors Factors Actions Date Expected Expected Indicatedto Help to hinder This form can be easily modified by the implementation team to monitor its own progress and to serve as a self-evaluation instrument. Designers can fill out this form, both for the project and for individual components. However, design teams and others connected with the project cannot expect the design team to have enough knowledge of the operational situation to fill out the form definitively. The implementation team will have much more information than is possible for the design team. Even the implementation team will be getting new information and new understanding, and for this reason will need to keep the form under regular monitoring. The implementation team should be expected, even required, to bring it up to date regularly. IV-18



PAGE 1

Non-quantifiable data can also be objective and can be used with rigor, although the tests of such analysis is not standard. One way to gain rigor is to present the data, in a descriptive form or by numbers, and then, separately, to explain its use as evidence in support of a point or recommendation. Evidence is the interpretation of the data used to support a point. This all admits much risk for error in judgment and intutition. Your only defense is to report and explain as completely as the limited space of an evaluation report allows. You may be able to use the models presented in this handbook to help reduce this risk. F. Validity Because of the subjective nature of an evaluation and the short time that you have to do it, achieving validity is not always easy. For your team to achieve credibility, you must be concerned with the problem. Here are some things you an do. 1. Plan your work systemmatically. Models will help you as will the implementation team's objectives and self-evaluation. 2. Check for consistency in both observations and analyses among your team members. Solving the inconsistencies may lead you through an exercise that will improve validity. 3. Develop hypotheses as soon as appears feasible and check them out specifically in your interviews. You may be able to specify the data needed, the source, and assign more than one member of the team to test the hypothesis. The entire team can hear the evidence and help draw inferences and conclusions. 4. Identify important data needs and gaps as early in the evaluation to improve your chance of getting the data. 5. Start drafting the report early in the evaluation. Writing the report is a good way to reveal data gaps and inconsistencies. 6. Interview techniques are critical. Never, ever, use questions in an interview that can be answered with "yes" or "1no."1 These questions are so easy to answer that they yield misinformation as often as information. They are especially ineffective when you and the respondent do not share a common native language. Instead use questions that require thought and require a description or analysis. A second useful technique is to demonstrate the attitude of a student, trying to learn and understand. Avoid the impression that you are trying to prove a point or make a case. Respondents are likely to be candid in helping you learn and understand. They are put on guard if you are trying to prove a point or make a case. VI-5



PAGE 1

CHAPTER II OPERATIONAL PRINCIPLES: Farming Systems Research and Extension This handbook is founded on a set of principles that provide a common basis for all project activities. Some of them can be considered assumptions, others represent basic truisms, while still others are conceptual models that help in understanding and managing the process. Farming Systems Research and Extension (FSR/E) can be thought of as "applied, farmer-oriented agro-biological and physical research supported by socio-economic sciences in a team effort which is integrated with extension functions and personnel, with the product being technology and the client being the farmer, and taking into consideration the ecology and macroenvironment." These principles can be identified. They are listed here and will be elaborated in the following pages. 1. FSR/E must deal with technology from the farmer's perspective. 2.' Farmer involvement is essential in FSR/E. 3. FSR/E is a problem-solving approach. 4. FSR/E is an essential component of the Technology Innovative Process (TIP), and much of its value lies in conditioning that process. 5. The Research-Extension System is but one system in a set of systems, and the other systems influence the impact of FSR/E interventions. The macro-environment is made up largely of the other systems. 6. Even though the project is the means by which access is gained to LDC technology problems, the major goal is to help the Host Country improve its set of national institutions working with research and extension. 'I-1



PAGE 1

The functions of the model must (a) be translated into activities (b) which are assigned to an administrative entity, (c) which must relate its own internal activities to each other and (d) to those activities assigned to the other entity. Four activities are identified: Subject matter research, area specific research, technical liaison and support, and area specific extension. The functions essential to technology innovation are likely to fall into more than one activity assignment and many of the functions can be performed equally well by either research or extension. For effective linkage between research and extension it is necessary that both deal in many of the functions, each one serving its owninterests. This problem is treated at length. C. The technical aspects of R/E are often the easiest to work with. Greatest need lies in organization and management. A project can often make an important impact in management with relatively little monetary cost. Even the very design of a project can facilitate the host institution manager's task. Major management problems are inadequate logistic support (caused by too many personnel for budget), inadequate financial support, inadequate linkage with international sources of technology and with extension, and lack of strategic planning. D. There are various effective alternatives for organization, some of which can be implemented with little trouble. Analyze the alternatives carefully before any one is supported by the project. Any effective organization will insure (a) that all functions of the TIP are covered and (b) that job descriptions are written so that the functions are actually executed. E. An important function of project design is to provide for realistic and useful evaluations. Not only suggest an evaluation plan, but also analyze it for its realism and feasibility of execution. It has been found that both design and implementation, as well as evaluation, can be usefully oriented to objectives. F. You can help make the design task easier and more effective by such actions as these. Help establish the paper trail of those who have already worked on the project or earlier projects that are relevant; brief the team; bring team leader to country early for some analyses and to structure his task; facilitate donor-design team contact; work as closely as is feasible with host country personnel; keep the team fully informed; and start writing the paper early. Chapter IV. Project Implementation A. Two entities are involved intimately, the field team and its back stop team in the home office. Rapport between them is worth some management time and financial investment. OS-3



PAGE 1

Appendix E Institutions and institutionalization This handbook emphasizes the distinction between institution and organization, even though it recognizes a close relationship and the fact that "institution building" almost always deals with a concrete, specific organization. This rationale is based on some common definitions of "institution." John R. Commons holds that an institution is "collective action in control of individual action." Such control is manifest through liberating the actions of some, restraining the actions of others, and expanding the scope of action of still others. One means by which individual action is controlled is providing what Commons calls "security of expectations." Another view of an institution is "a set of rules guiding behavior of individuals that are valued by the Society." Under each of these definitions, the rules or controls of the individual's actions are enforced or provided by Society as the collective actor. Institutions are invisible, even though very real. They must function through organizations, often administrative forms provided by Society. It is through concrete, specific organizations that institutions become visible, concrete, and tangible. As important as the organization is, it is necessary to look beyond the organization to its impact on "individual action" in order to deal with institutions, institution building, and institutionalization. The institution we are dealing with is "publicly supported innovation in the technology of agricultural production." The control is expected to be manifest in liberating producers from inadequate technology and in liberating consumers from food scarcities and high food prices. It may also restrain some farmers from continuing to use obsolete and inefficient technology. Indirectly, businesses serving agriculture and the agricultural population can be expected to have an expanded field of activity. For this to happen, it is clear that the impact of the technology innovation must be significant and it must be widespread. The organizations most clearly involved are those dealing directly with research and extension. They are the most visible of the organizations dealing with technology innovation, and they are the object of our interest in institution building. However, it needs to be clear that many other organizations have important roles to play in the institution of publicly supported agricultural technology innovation--organizations such as universities, civil service commissions, fund allocating bodies, other government agencies, marketing organizations, policy-making groups, and even donors. v-1



PAGE 1

c. Technical Liaison and Support This activity assignment is not found in many LDC R/E Systems, and this lack is one explanation for extension's limited effectiveness. The assignments, activities, and responsibilities associated with it are not well understood. There must be some mechanism by which the field extension agent can be linked effectively with sources of technology. If the link is not present, agents are not de facto part of the System and must supply the technology from their own resources. This has never proven a viable alternative. There are several options for providing this linkage. The research entity can provide it, extension can provide it, or they can share it. Technical-liaison and support has three major responsibilities which it will discharge through several activities. +One is to maintain liaison with research for the purpose of knowing About and understanding the' current best technology alternatives available and about promising alternatives that are becoming available. It must not only know about the technology, it must also have the capacity to understand the technology and to work with it. This requires that at least half the TLS staff have formal training to the same level as area research personnel, probably the M.S. degree, and all should have'adequate short-term training. Collaboration with the field research in testing and adaptation is the single most effective way of keeping up with technology development. By this collaboration extension can inform itself of the technology and understand it. It can give the technology a better test than can research without this collaboration, thus serving its own interest. Finally,.for the technology that does stand the test, the extension process is off to an early start. Collaboration also facilitates extension participation in problem identification and problem definition and in deciding what passes the tests. +The second responsibility of technical liaison and support personnel is to liaison with input suppliers to improve the chances that the right inputs will be available for that technology embodied in inputs. In the case of seed, this unit could recruit producers of improved varieties. +The third responsibility is to provide technical support to field staff. The field staff, by its very posting, will quickly become isolated from the rest of the system, if the system is not energetic in keeping it integrated. IV-6



PAGE 1

Chapter VI. Project Evaluation A. The purpose of an evaluation is not to establish error and to place blame--not even to discover and publish the ultimate truth. It is to help improve the project. Empathy and a positive attitude are helpful and need not compromise your responsibility. B. Prepare carefully for the task. Study the paper trail, insist on adequate briefing, and know and organize your team. C. Develop your own evaluation strategy, including objectives and scope of work, as well as your methods and style of operating. Resist temptation to make recommendations that cannot be achieved or have only marginal value. D. Make use of project objectives, translated into team objectives to the extent feasible. The more you can seek the genuine contribution of the implementation team, the greater the chance that your report will be taken seriously. Give the team adequate opportunity for input. E. Achieving objectivity in the short time normally allowed for an evaluation is much more difficult than it appears to be. So-called objective measures are little help, if you haven't been completely objective in 'selecting the objective measures. Your best defense is to keep constantly in mind how difficult it is to achieve objectivity. F. Validity, likewise, is difficult. Start writing report early to help you identify data gaps and data inconsistencies while you still have time to work on them. Explain, data and how you are using it as evidence. Never use a question' in an interview that can be answered with a "e" or "no." This type question almost always yields faulty information. C. You may be asked for opinion or evaluation of persons that has little to do with your project evaluation responsibility. Think carefully before writing a second report that includes elements not in the official report. H. Outline your report and keep it consistent. Avoid such wording as "G should be commended for ....". Then you don't have to say later that "H should be criticized for,,.." Keep report impersonal to the the extent feasible, Deal with events, not people. OS-5



PAGE 1

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION A. Methodology This handbook is a synthesis of some of the things we have learned over more than a quarter of a century in working with technical assistance projects in research and extension. The syntesizing methodology is simple. A draft is prepared, reviewed by experienced persons, revised, circulated for use (tested) and then reviewed and revised again. Working draft #3 has resulted from one workshop review. The plan is to conduct a workshop at least once a year for a comprehensive review. In addition, reactions are being sought, actively and continuously, between the review workshops. You are invited, even urged, to let us have your reactions and comments, if you have had any experience in research and extension projects. Send them to the Farming Systems Support Project, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611. B. Audience The handbook is intended for the several groups of personnel who are involved in donor projects--from project development through design, implementation, and evaluation. These audiences include donor personnel, both those involved in program and project review as well as those responsible for project development and implementation. Others who will work on a project include design, implementation, and evaluation teams, all of which will include members with varying levels of experience in technical assistance and work with international donors. Each chapter is more relevant to one group than to others, but every group will have some interest in what is being said for others, and is encouraged to become familiar with other chapters. The handbook is oriented to the donor project and donor personnel and contractors, both long and short term. However, it is held explicitly and strongly that the project, in turn, must be oriented to and must serve the needs and interests of the Host Institution and Host Country. It is assumed that one objective of all projects will be to help the Host Country strengthen its research and* extension institutions. The need for institutional development is a continuing theme throughout the handbook, which in effect assumes a project-oriented approach to Host Institution development.



PAGE 1

Technical support activities include training of field agent; preparation of reference materials and training aids; trouble shooting and response to agents' requests for help. Training of field agents needs to be integral to the extension program, not an ad hoc service from other entities. Training is the principle means by which information, extension' s stock-intrade, flows through the system. Field agent training needs to be part of the program of technical liaison and support personnel and written into job descriptions. Until we can provide better information think in terms of one TLS person for every twelve field agents, with half the TLS personnel formally trained to the same level of area research personnel and the other half with training, short-term and otherwise, well beyond that of the extension field agent. d. field Extension The performance of the field agent is an exceptionally good indicator of the performance of the research-extension system. With few exceptions, inadequacy in his performance is due to deficiencies in the technology innovation system, more than to deficiencies of the agent. Agent to farmer ratio or formal training of the agent, both often. cited as major problems, are not nearly as important to agent performance as are the quality of the technological information the system makes available and the training and other technical support he gets from the rest of the research and extension system. The agent is an instrument of the system and cannot be expected to be an autonomous force in himself. The field agent has two major responsibilities--to inform farmers of new.(to the farmer) technological alternatives and to instruct them-in how to use the technologies. He is also responsible for reporting on performance of the technology and farmer problems and needs. We know of no rule 'of thumb for the number of field agents needed. It is clear, however, that many countries have more agents than they can support adequately, either technically or logistically. Almost all countries have a higher ratio of agents to TLS personnel than is desireable. Bryce and Evenson present some analyses that indicate LDC's tend to over invest in extension compared to research. (Bryce, James K. and Robert E. Evenson, Agricultural Research and Extension, Agricultural Development Council, 1975, pp 8-10). It will rarely be the case that more field agents can be justified. It is better to support the present ones more effectively. 3. The above discussion provides the best reasoning available to justify the need to address both research and extension in a single project. Working with both entities in a single project will provide a common orientation to both entities and will provide resources to both entities, dedicated to the



PAGE 1

J. Managing New Components A project is often introducing something *new. In some cases new activities cause no concern. Sometimes, however, they are met with fear and suspicion by some units Of the host institution or by other entities. If other units are fearful or suspicious, it is damaging to the host institution and its linkage possibilities. Below are some actions you can take. 1. Identify the ways the new component can be helpful to the units whose collaboration you need. In one case, for example, an area-specific research program won the support of a commodity team by helping triple the number of trials that could be run. The commodity team reasoned that allowing field researchers to help plan the field trials was a reasonable price to pay for the extra trials. If the new component cannot be helpful to other units, this is an indication that something is wrong with design or implementation strategy. 2. Identify with other activities or programs that have momentum or with problems or programs that are receiving more attention than usual and seek means to be helpful to them. Remember, however, that this is suggested as an implementation strategy and should not be allowed to detract from project goals and objectives. 3. Work as closely and directly with the farm production process as is feasible and in line with project objectives. You may be able to relate this to the need for early production impact and be able to work it into project strategy. K. Going the Extra Mile The basic and overriding purpose of your project is to help the host institutiton with its own development. It is easy to lose sight of this purpose because of the immediate pressure of managing a project, which takes on its own life and can easily appear as an end in itself. The project will likely have some institution building components. In almost all cases there is much more that needs to be and can be done, within resources that the project has available to it. You have some resources. You have. your own expertise, and can always squeeze out a little time. It is always possible to make some adjustments in the use and selection of short-term consultants and in short-term training provisions of the project. It is possible to amend the contract without unreasonable trouble. There are also some indirect resources. Your donor and others may have funds available for sound and worthy purposes. The very existence of your project may create investment opportunities for other donors and interest in helping out. Your chance to go the extra mile in helping the host institution in its own development will be directly associated with the rapport team members are able to establish with their V -12



PAGE 1

e. Technical liaison and support This responsibility is vital to extension and is perhaps the single most neglected area of work in research and extension. In very few countries is this responsibility adequately handled. There is virtually no way the field agent can perform adequately unless the TLS function is carried out well. If s/he does, s/he is acting independently of the system, as an autonomous agent, not as an agent of the system. See Appendix D for a more detailed discussion of the function. The most effective alternative is for the extension entity to assume this role, assign persons to it, provide them the training needed for the function, charge them with effecting linkage to research, and supporting them with resources adequate to the task. With an adequate liaison and support unit, extension can effect liaison with other sources of technology, if there is more than one research entity in the country. This unit can also help with area-specific research. A fully. operative technical liaison and support unit would discharge all the functionsexpected of the verification as well as those expected of the research-extension liaison officer. One alternative is for research to assume the role. It is in the interest of the research entity to do it, if extension does not assume, the responsibility.. It is in the interest of research to facilitate the role, even if extension assumes it. It is seldom that research can give the technical support the field agents need. If research assumes the responsibility, the best that can be hoped for is for research to promote its won wares. This will be a minimum of support to field agents and that specific to its most recent technology innovations. If research accepts this responsibility, it often-does it through the research-extension liaison officer. The fact that it is referred to in the singular, indicates the minimum level it implies. In fact, with a technical liaison and support unit in extension, it still may be a good idea for the research entity to have a research-extenion liaison officer. The responsibility of this officer can also be broadened to include bulletins, radio broadcasts, and other information services. Still another alternative is the technology verification officer in extension. His function is to take the technology that research is recommending and verify it in the conditions in which extension programs are working. The extension verification trial is another form of the testing and adaptation trials of research and is a legitimate and necessary function for extension to perform. The verification label does not indicate that the support function is adequately handled. In very small countries, area-specific research and technical liaison and support could be consolidated into a single unit. It would be responsible'for testing and adapting technology introduced by the subject matter research and promoting it through the field agents. iv-15



PAGE 1

working draft #3 Mhat are same of the organizational options that Might be considered? The organizational patterns for research and extension varies so greatly that using organization charts to represent ideas is risky. The following figures are partial and will be used to suggest two broad approaches to research extension linkage and the deployment of extension, technology, liaison and support personnel. 1. The normal organization model for technical liaison and support staffs attaches them to the Director' s office either national or provincial. Frequently they report directly to an Associate, Assistant, or Deputy Director for Technical Services. Figure 2 shows such separate organizations, in which an FS1VE project has been added in one or mo~re provinces. In such organizations, functional gaps between research and extension are frequently if not universally found. Sanething more is needed. In this separate system, an added option (Figure 2A could be to establish a unit to perform, the liaison functions. It is well to differentiate between administrative liaison at various levels and technical liaison. Technical or subject liaison might well be performed by one or more of the Extension Technical Liaison and support Staff of the Extension Service. Assigning such liaison personnel to the FSPIVE team from extens ion should greatly improve communications, and cooperation. However, unless the liaison personnel that are assigned to the team are supported by an effective subject matter staff in extension, problem in utilizing the information within extension may be expected. Another 'approach is to set up a joint technical adaptive research and extension support unit, if it can be achieved under country administration regulations. Figure 3 displays a division director who is jointly emloyed by the Research and Extension Directors and who reports to each of the Directors for their respective functions, under the watchful eye of a Director General. It was pointed out earlier that it is difficult to classify a number of the functions on the Research Extension Continuum as research or extension. This especially is true in such areas as problem identification, field testing and preparing recommendations for field use. So why not put these highly related farmer oriented activities under the same leadership. Carrying out this approach of course requires close cooperation between extension and research. Another option with this general approach would be for the Director of the technical research and extension support division to report formally to a Director General, while working informally with both the Director of Research and Director of Extension for their particular functions. In this latter structure, the Director of the Technical Division would act very much like Department Heads do in land grant colleges. This approach has much to recommend it, not only for affecting close cooperation, but also for keeping the personnel oriented to their subject matter functions. D-7



PAGE 1

4. General Comments There is often a need to comment on the project or the host institution beyond the area covered by the scope of work. If your team feels this need, use this heading. Keep general comments to under three pages. It can come here or later. 5. Evaluation In this section, follow your scope of work, item by item, using the format below. If some items can be combined, do so, but don't let an item get lost. A. Scope of Work item Number one. Evidence or findings Discussion Recommendations (and "alternatives to consider.) B. to N. If you have no recommendations (and you should not unless they are significant) you can present findings and discussions thoroughly. It is just as important to justify no recommendation on an item in a scope of work as it is to justify a recommendation. Assume that the donor is interested in your investigation of an issue listed in the scope of work. 6. Extra-Scope of Work Issues As disussed above, it is often useful to go beyond the of work in gathering data and presenting analysis. Much of the extra-scope material can fit in in the scope if work above. Use a separate section, however, if you need it. Attempt to put all of your evaluation in one document which becomes part of donor's memory. With reasonable skill, sensitive issues can be dealt with adequately in an official document. 7. People and Places/ List the people you talked with, the documents you read, and the sites you visited. 8. Annexes You may want to include material that does not fit in report. Put it in one or more annexes. V I-8



PAGE 1

TABLE VIII BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS USING ALTERNTIVE ASSUMPTION II (in constant US $) Year Annual Cost of DVP of Benefit Stream DPV of Project Project Benefits costs (thousand $-) 1 890.5 890.5 2 1,285.3 1,118.2 3 1,392.7 1,052.9 .33 x .23 x 4 1,257.1 827.2 .50 x .33 x 5 1,249.2 714.5 .75 x .43 x 6 199.2 99 x .50 x 7 199.2 86.1 x .43 x 8 199.2 74.9 x .38 x 9 199.2 65.1 x .33 x 10 199.2 56.6 x .28 x 11 199.2 49.2 x .25 x 12 199.2 42.8 x .22 x 13 199.2 37.3 x .19 x 14 199.2 32.5 x .16 x 15 199.2 28.1 x .14 x 5,174.9 3.89 x B --1 3.89 x C 5,174.9 x = 5,174.9 = 1,330 3.89 B-9



PAGE 1

:'working draft #3 Things Research might agree to do a. Cooperate with extension in performing the various research functions which involve farmer contact and identification of problems needing research. b. Take part in the training of extension personnel as is feasible. c. Take part in field days as feasible to help explain research. d. Make farm visits on request by extension to help identify problems with which extension needs help. e. Work with extension personnel to help decide what should be recommended to farmers based on research results. This involves extrapolating from specific research as well as simplification without loss of validity. 2. There is no perfect place for TL&S personnel to be housed as their role involves frequent contact between the extension field system and knowledge sources. But other things being equal the accessing of information and its introduction into the extension system will be enhanced by locating extension personnel close to research personnel. 3. Work with research counterparts will be benefitted by having similar organizational structure in extension and research. Barriers are reduced when administration units have the sane subject matter caqponents and role definitions. For example, including wheat among the responsibilities of a field crop person in one of the units and as a part of cereal grains in the other may impede communication. 4. Place high priority on having a TL&S staff training experience and attitudes that will enhance their acceptability to researchers and other sources of technical personnel; and then provide them with the tools of their profession. Practical knowledge of farming and familiarity with field problems must go hand in hand with the ability to understand and communicate with technical sources. The ability to reduce caplex things to understandable terms and to write and speak are also important abilities but must not take priority over the first two. Ability to relate to extension agents and farmers is usually enhanced by a genuine concern for their performance and welfare. Therefore, one frequently hears about employing persons in the role who "like people". hen linked with the other requirements, this is an important consideration but again can not substitute for technical ca petence and practical field knowledge. 5. Don't develop a mechanical, inflexible role for TL&S personnel. Technical liaison and support staff are to train and facilitate the performance of extension personnel as needed. Therefore, the approach to their work must be flexible. Too often such personnel work only in formal teaching situations and do not work with extension agents in the field. Sae extension agents are able to attend workshop sessions and then proceed directly to using the information in the field. But others, a great many others, will be unsure of themselves either because they did not grasp it fully or because the dissemination of the information per se may expose them to related practical field questions with which they feel insecure. D-14



PAGE 1

Table of Contents Project Handbook Technical Assistance Research and Extension (emphasizing farming systems) OPERATIONAL SUMMARY OS-I Chapter I: INTRODUCTION I-I A. Methodology I-i B. Audience I-I C. Donor Processes 1-2 D. Handbook Organization and Use 1-2 E. Farming Systems Research and Extension 1-3 F. The Farming System 1-3 G. Emphasis on Models 1-4 H. Review Panel 1-4 Chapter II: OPERATIONAL. PRINCIPLES II-1 A. Farmer's Perspective 11-2 B. Farmer Participation 11-3 C. Problem-solving Approach 11-4 D. Technology Innovation Process 11-5 E. The Macro-Environment 11-6 F. Institutionalization and Management 11-7 Chapter III: PROJECT DEVELOPMENT III-1 A. R/E In Country Strategy III-1 B. Host Country Interests 111-2 C. Conceptualize and Strategize 111-3 D. Early Impact--Visibility III -5 E. Basic National Capacity III-6, F. International Technology Transfer 111-7 G. Don't Underestimate the Potential 111-8 H. Linkages, R/E and ITN 111-8 I. Design Considerations 111-9, Chapter IV: PROJECT DESIGN IV-1 A. Introduction IV-1 B. Technical Design Considerations IV-1 Use of Models; Activity Assignments-Subject Matter Research, Area-specific Research, Technical Liaison and Support, Field Extension C. Management Design Considerations IV-6 Personnel Training; Host Institution Management--Logistics, Financial Resources, Linkages, Strategic Planning, Personnel Management and Development TC-1



PAGE 1

Appendix C The Logical Framework The Logical Framework (Log Frame) is a model that helps you organize your own thoughts and provides a common ground for communication among all of the personnel involved in a project. The Log Frame displays, in matrix form, the project's means-end heirarchy along with associated measures, means of verification, and necessary assumptions regarding factors not under control of project personnel. The matrix form is shown in Figure C-i. Its size will vary with your needs. Figure C-I. The Logical Framework (Log Frame) Objectively Means :arrative Verifiable of Important Summary Indicators Verification Assumptions Project Goal: Purpose: Outputs: Inputs: "Logical" indicates that the items must be related to each other in a manner that stands the test of sound reasoning. The inputs must be such that the outputs are achieved, and if t-,j outputs are achieved they in turn will accomplish the purpose. C-i



PAGE 1

Inputs should also account for host country contributions to the project, either through the host institution or other avenues. Assumptions Assumptions cause the most trouble in a Log Frame. What is recorded is not as important as facing the question: "What has to happen in areas over which project management has no control for the project to be successful?" There are many hazards, some caused by pressure on the host institution from other donor projects, at times from the same donor. Two errors are common in Log Frame assumptions. One of them virtually amounts to assuming away important problems or hazards to the project. Assuming the host government will make equipment, personnel, and funds available on a timely basis is one such case. Under severe resource constraints exacerbated at times by donor presssure, host institutions simply cannot meet these obligations, and experience in the country demonstrates that it cannot. Assuming that it will is an error. Another common error is to assume certain factors that should be under the control of or influenced by either the project or the donor. By the time that the project is put in its final form, some conditions that you needed to assume in project development should have been attended to. It is not reasonable to assume, for example, that coordinationn and cooperation will continue between research and extension." If such coordination is precarious, then the project should address it. This is an item critical to institutional development and to success of the project. Assuming success of project elements is not logical. For example, "small farmer research will be improved through training provided by project" or "effectiveness of extension will be improved by training and vehicles the project provides" ar.e specific variables the project addresses. They do not logically fit in assumptions. If host institution contribution is likely to be a real problem, it needs to be specifically addressed, either in the project or by donor-host government interaction as an extraproject activity. It cannot be assumed away. Don't hesitate to write "No assumptions necessary." C-3



PAGE 1

-This brings us to an issue that is not resolved, namely whdt consitutes a "basic, minimum national capacity." In the abse nce of definitive information, these guidelines hold that a nation can depend on the international technology network for science and much of technology generation. However, it must have its: own internal capacity for the other functions in the technology innovation process--testing, adaptation, integration, dissemination, diffusion and adoption. Affordability A major issue that often needs to be faced is the cost of a research program that involves site specific on-farm research and adaptation of technology to various farming systems. There are several considerations. One is that in a donor project to build indigenous capacity, operational efficiency is not necessarily the first test. Building capacity involves learning, both on the part of nationals and expatriates and donors. The first thing to be learned is how to be effective. Once that is learned, they must learn how to be efficient. Finally, the program must be expanded so that it can have a significant impact on the economy. Craving for efficient, economy-wide impact too quickly, can cause the process to be short-circuited with the result that none of the three are achieved. This is an important economic consideration that needs to be accomodated in your economic analysis. (See David Korten, "Rural Development Programming: The Learning Process Approach," Rural Development Review, Vol.ll, Mo. 2, Cornell University, 1981, for a discussion of the effectiveness, efficiency, expansion model.) Looking first for effectiveness does not change the fact that efficiency must be achieved, and the design can anticipate and prepare for it. Long run objectives require short term planning and action. Here are some alternatives for achieving efficiency in research organization and management. 1. In some countries it will not be efficient to have an administrative structure that reflects the two research components (national subject matter and area specific research) and the two extension components (technical liaison and support and field agents). You can save on size and structure. Do not save by neglecting functions. You can combine functions in fewer administrative units but not by neglecting functions. You can save by reducing the number of subject matters (or commodities) to be attended and by the number of areas, but keep all the functions for each. B-2



PAGE 1

WARI 111.0 ANI) 1111A.: DI,:.TA ('11ART creative approaches to project planning and lead to improved costing, bidding, and contracting procedures. Oeciae -0 2eison ELEMENTS OF DELTA CltARTS < > DELTA is an acronym that represents live of the seven kinds of graphic symbols employed on the chart. These are decision box, event box, logic box, time arrow, and activity box. Event Event The sixth symbol, the connection matrix, is used in depicting a large fanout of activities. The seventh symbol is that of a OR Logic ground or earth termination, which is common in electricalAND circuit diagrams. It is used to denote the termination of a sequence of preceding elements. 0 Time Arrow The seven distinctive symbols in their most basic form are Oranzio or illustrated in Fig. 1. In this form, the symbols can be used in Resto, presenting an overall program concept without cluttering the ActiVit Activi DELTA chart with time information and codes that relate specific activities, events, and decisions to other parts of a program plan. As with most networks, DELTA charts incorporate events Connection and activities. In practice, these two elements often do not -W M" comply .to a precise syntax with resulting fuzzy definition and confusion. To avoid these problems, both events and activities __L Groe have been given a precise syntax. An event is structured as a nounor bjet flloed y averbor ctin pasesuc as Fig. 1. Symbols for DELTA charts (first level of complexity). noun or object followed by a verb or action phase such as "report complete." An activity is composed of an active verb followed by an object word or phrase plus constraints.' FORM OF EVENT Examples of events and activities that illustrate this syntax are OMeCT+ACTM PHRASE +QUALIFICATIONS shown in Fig. 2 and 3, respectively. C (soo A decision is defined as a choice among several alternatives. o rm Ordinarily, three at most can be shown conveniently, but one may show others at the expense of warping the decision box. Fig. 2. Form of event with examples. The decision maker's title is written in the decision box. A logic box contains logic copula, such as AND or OR. The FOR OF ACTNI1TY AND box may appear at either the input or output of an event ACTPX vER8+ OBJCT WORD OR PHRAS +CONSTRAINTS or activity box. If used at the input, all of the activities, Carry to Wilo events, or decisions feeding into the AND must be realized besconce f, t bent fore the subsequent activity can be started or the subsequent a,,t event can occur. Similarily, all activities, events, or decisions at connected to an AND at the output of an activity or event box Lear, Fre --must be carried out or occur. The AND box may also be used as a junction point to gather together the output of activities, Fig. 3. Form of activity with examples. events, and decisions that have occurred and then to fan them In order to relate decisions, events, and activities to cornout to subsequent activities, events, and decisions. plete descriptions of these elements in a project plan, provision The OR function, as it is usually used in DELTA charts, is is made for incorporating an identifying code within each of to be interpreted as an "exclusive-or." That is, one and only the corresponding DELTA chart symbols. This second level of one of the activities, events, or decisions feeding an OR box can be realized at a given time. The OR box has only a single symbol complexity is illustrated in Fig. 4. As is discussed later, output. DELTA charts are often used in conjunction with Gantt In contrast to most network methods, the lines that join charts. The latter presents in more detail the graphic presentaIn cntrst o mst etwrk ethdsthelins tat oin tion of the time sequence of the elements. Thle identifying the various boxes represent only the flow of time, except at o of tle the men of teeleents. Two idets. the output of a decision box where the lines also represent the code is then the means of interrelating these two charts. decisions. In most networks, the lines represent activities that c p eel of DELT chartlusbra ogy the hdled are carried out over a period of time. complex level of DELTA chart symbology, the scheduled dates for decisions, events, and activity durations are incorporated within the corresponding symbols. Consistent with the above syntactical scheme, an objective is strucAn event, defined previously as a noun or object followed tured as the infinitive form of a verb followed by an object word or by a verb or action phrase, is portrayed by a box that is phrase plus constraints, for example, "to apply science for the benefit of mankind." divided into three parts. In the large upper portion, the event G2



PAGE 1

Figure IV-2. Research Organization Matrix !Subject Ares-Specific Research Units !Matter ___ !Research ! !Units I Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 1 Area 4 Area n ;Cereals ! ! !Legumes I ! !Livestockl I I ISoils -! ;Other I I ! This system of organization was developed and.used effectively in Guatemala by ICTA. The area-specific research units are responsible for the integrity of the research program in its relevance to the most important farming system(s) of an area. They must know and understand the farming system(s) and enough of the technology so that they can help adjust the subject matter research programs to that area, At the same time the national (or system-wide) subject matter research program leaders are responsible for the subject matter integrity of the programs. Where the lines intersect, reconciliation must take place. Of course no one is completely happy, but under proper leadership from top management, totat program integrity can be maintained. Reconciliation takes place at annual meetings in which research results of the past year are reported and analyzed and research plans for the next year are made. Top management may have to take an active role. If meetings can be held in the area, it may help. The national subject matter programs can think of generating technology if national resources permit teams with this capacity. The programs can also be manned with very small teams who depend on the international network and imported technology under more severe resource constraints. IV-17



PAGE 1

The design differences for early impact are not very different from conventional design. The process of knowing the farmer and doing on-farm trials are virtually the same. The difference comes from expecting production from research AND extension, not just from extension alone, and putting a reasonable presssure on research for early impact. Expecting early impact will also mean that project sites will not be in the most difficult areas. However, that should not be a difference. Until an institution is fairly well developed with a considerable capacity, it is a doubtful strategy to expect it to perform in difficult ecological areas or in areas ill-served by infrastructure and markets. E. Basic National Capacity Five elements can be considered as constituting Basic National Capacity in agricultural research and extension. 1. One is the ability to know and to understand the farmer clients and their systems of farming. This does not mean all farmers in all areas and all commodities. Choices have to be made, and the choice does not have to be the smallest farmers in the most difficult areas. Choices are difficult because so much has to be left unattended. It does mean that for-the areas, problems, and commodities chosen there is a capacity to know and" understand producers--and that the choices are limited to a scope that can be adquately attended by resources available. 2. The second element is the ability to generate technology OR the ability to import it. For the concept of basic national c apacity it makes no difference which of these abilities exist or if they exist in combination. What is significant is that farmers are offered technological opportunities, and that the national RIE system has the capacity to do this on a continuing basis. Many countries have little chance to develop a sustainable capacity to generate technology, even in a few commodities. Most countries can develop the capacity and the management system to monitor the world technology system for likely technology. 3. The third element is the ability to test the technological alternatives IN the relevant farming systems and BY criteria of those systems. This also requires hard choices to keep the program scope within institutional resources. 4. The fourth element is the ability to inform farmers of improved technology and to instruct them on it use. Some technology is very easy for farmers to learn and integrate into their operations, and little more is needed than to demonstrate it. Other technologies are increasingly difficult to work into the system and more instructional effort is needed. Basic capacity can begin with ability to handle the simpler technology. 111-6



PAGE 1

B. Pre-Implementation Management There is often a considerable time gap between being awarded a contract and being able to begin implementation in earnest. If resources can be found, this time can be used to great advantage. You can start selecting participant trainees, start commodity procurement, set up the support management system, and arrange housing and make other in-country arrangements for the expatriate team. The team leader should be selected as early as feasible, and all reasonable effort needs to be made for funding that will allow him to start to work and to travel to the host country. For certain purposes other personnel also need to visit the country. Donors often have some means by which such preimplementation (or interim) activities can be authorized. Persistence in seeking authorization and funds will increase chances of project success. C. Team Member Selection 1. Match the person to the position. Lack of personal technical capability is seldom a problem. Technical mismatches sometimes are. In some cases, technical qualifications in some areas are surprisingly high, and a person who could serve well in most situations may not be up to host country expectations. Another type of mismatch is a person completely adequate for a range of responsibilities assigned to a responsibility outside that range. Management has to assume responsibility for inadequate performance under these conditions, not the person. 2. Check for host country personality preferences. Some countries prefer assertive people, others prefer more passive types. Check with experienced persons to find if your host country has such preferences and what they are. 3. The right combination of persons is as important as individual members. Check for mix of technical abilities as well as combination of personality types and styles of work. Consider needs and interests of host institution. 4. Start early and give yourself as much time as you can in puttingthe team together. 5. If an ideal candidate does not accept your invitation, ask her/him to help identify someone with same qualifications. 1 6. Be able to explain role and significance! of all positions. Sometimes significance of a position and need for a person is as good a motivator as is salary. 7. Analyze thoroughly the actions contractor can take within own discretion to make service on the project more attractive, both professionally and in quality of life. Reflect this in project policy, management, and recruitment. 8. Team leader should be selected first and should be involved in recruiting others. V-2



PAGE 1

tE'li IIRANSACrIONNS ON ENGINERIN; MANAGI'.MI NI, NOVEMISLIt 19 I idenitilication is shown in, the lower right-hand corner of tile Decided box. The finc duration planned for carrying out the activity is Decisw shown in the lower left-hand corner o' the box. The connection matrix is used primarily to fan out tile outputs of a few activity, event, decision, or logic boxes, usually to a large number of activity boxes. Tile inputs may be Event te ,ut brought into either the left or right sides of the matrix rows, but only one input goes to any row. The outputs to subsequent activities come from the bottoms of the columns and OR} connection with one or more inputs is denoted by an X in the AND appropriate row-column of the matrix. Time Akreu ______ PR(XEDURE FOR MAKING DELTA CHARTS Ad.tyr bainty A DELTA chart .is, naturally, most easily constructed if one WW I Activity has a firm idea of what must be done and the order in which to the work is to be performed. There is no restriction in the order in which DELTA chart components may be arranged. CeiaNeDmette eI iOn This flexibility, along with the power 'of the elements availmIi able, simplifies the task of making DELTA charts. A. procedure that has been found to be helpful in constructing DELTA _._,, charts is illustrated in Fig. 6. Fig. 4. Symbols for DELTA charts (second level of complexity). CONVEYING SCHEDULE INFORMATION The sequence of elements (decisions, events, activities, etc.) shown on DELTA charts conveys the order in which it is planned to carry out the various operations and may, if the -KOMee user chooses, indicate time durations for activities and time of occurrence for events and decisions. For specific paths through the DELTA chart, time and cost analysis techniques and corresponding computer programs that have been developed for Ewe.... the analysis of PERT networks are .directly applicable to DELTA charts. In addition, if desired, probabilities can be associated with activity times and and decisions; and the analyXN't C ?4GOR [ } k sis methods developed for decision box (DB) and GERT Chip not4 AW networks can be used for DELTA charts. Thus, the adoption Time -of DELTA charts does not preclude the use of methodology associated with other network methods when appropriate. ,,, ,I'm At the other extreme of analysis complexity, for small wi Acivity projects the time information can be omitted from the DELWTA chart and the project time base portrayed by relating the project DELTA chart to a Gantt or MOST chart [7]. This is D simply done by using a common identification of events, V Ic t"Cies activities, and decisions defined on the two charts. A typical Example of a DELTA chart depicting a proposed research 0 approach for a project and the corresponding Gantt chart are __U presented in Fig. 7 and 8. respectively. For the smallor medium-sized projects, the combination of DELTA and Gantt I-*Fig. S. Symbols for DELTA charts (third level of complexity). charts provides a clear and concise method for portraying project organization and. at least for small projects. provides an entirely adequate tool for project schedule analysis and is defined. In the lower right corner an event identification, anaent. usually a number or alphabetic character, is given and in the management. lower left, the event date is written. The decision box format ('ON't LISION is analogous to that of an event box. An activity box is divided into four parts. The largest part DELTA charts are an altractive alternative to common netshows the activity. The top part of the activity box shows work methods such :i PERT due to the additional flexibility responsibility for carrying out *he activity and the activity provided by decision and logic boxes. They provide a method G-3



PAGE 1

Hayami and Ruttan present a detailed analysis comparing the Japanese experience with the United States experience. It cuts. through the dramatic superficial differences and clearly demonstrates the more important similarities. The point is made most clearly that technology innovation strategy must be based on the resource endowment of the country modified by current economic trend. The book also contains historical analyses of European countries useful for developing modern day technology innovation strategies. Especially interesting is the account of the German experience, one of the first in the socialization of agricultural research, in which the government developed public programs aimed specifically at inducing agricultural development. The historical accounts also show the interrelation among agricultural development, industrial development, and technology development. Of particular value in project development is their identification of the three phases of international technology transfer, based on historical analysis. Countries vary in their capacity to accept or receive technology transferred in, and the implication is clear that R/E projects will be most fruitful if they are adapted to the country's current and potential capability. Although the book is most useful for designing technology innovation policy and strategy, it also provides a basis for infer ences useful in research and extension management. --0Creative Evaluation Patton, Michael Quinn Sage Publications; Beverly Hills and London, 1981 This is one of several books by Patton. Readers differ on which they prefer, but they all appreciate and respect the authors's message based both on 'experience and a thorough knowledge of the literature. Creative Evaluation has no formula or step-by-step guidelines for the evaluator, and this by design. Patton recognizes the almost infinite combination of circumstances or situations in which evaluators will find themselves and the futility of searching for a formula that will serve broadly. His frame of reference seems of particular relevance to RIE projects. He sets forth two concepts that are particularly appealing. One is the concept of assets analysis in contrast to needs analysis, equating flses with project strengths and "needs" with its weakness. He also introduces the concept of user orientation, emphasizing the fact that the user has the final say on the impact your evaluation will have. AL-2



PAGE 1

working draft #3 e. Advising research colleagues of problems encountered by farmers and facilitating opportunities for the researchers to observe them. This includes inviting research colleagues to travel with them to observe field problems or to take part in programs with extension personnel and farmers. f. Ccumnicating with related organizations in their subject matter field to facilitate linkage and coordination, especially suppliers and marketing firms who can advise on problems as well as help pass on information to their clients. g. Backstopping agents as they encounter problems in the field and providing appropriate rtedial training. No matter how well trained they are, field extension workers will encounter problem beyond their capacity. It is the responsibility of TL&S personnel to help field personnel deal with* those problems. h. Monitoring experiences of farmers and programs in agricultural development. Following up with agents and farmers to get reactions to new technology and to identify new problem the farmers have observed is a critical part of the specialist's job. Are there any special things to keep in mind in deploying~ TL&S personnel? The eMployment of even a well trained TL&S staff does not guarantee effective performance of the role. A number of things need to be planned to facilitate performance. Research and extension missions. The missions of these organizations should specifically state a policy of mutual support and liaison as well as the objective, common to both of providing farmers with improved technology. All staff of each organization must be aware of the organizational mission. Such policies should provide for both formal and informal assistance and'lateral as well as vertical liaison. That is, all staff need to view personnel of the other organization as "family", and give their needs priority attention. This joint decision by the Directors of both organizations to set a favorable environment for linkage and mutual support is one key to successful performance of these mutually dependent functions. Mobility. Mobility for TL&S staff who must relate to many groups outside, as well as the extension staff pe~r se, is of paramount importance. Such personnel are scarce in most countries and travel time is not very productive. Project design teams need to provide for the mobility required by the job description. There is a tendency to cut back everything equally when cuts must be made in budgets. These personnel, in a large measure, determine the content and technical quality of the whole organization and if they are not able to perform, the quality of extension' s performance will suffer. D-5



PAGE 1

2. Each project is atypical and needs its own management system. The system will be a blend of contractor, donor, and host institution procedures, designed to serve specific project needs. The most effective way to accomplish this is a meeting in country of representatives of the organizations that have the authority to make decisions. In case of donors, find out what decisions are made in country and which at headquarters. 3. Administrative procedures need to be developed. Beyond this expectations need to be clarified about other roles of the contractor support system, especially those dealing with procurement of commodities, recruitment of staff, handling of participant trainees. You also need to know how to deal with emergencies, especially medical and medical evacuation problems. Other matters to deal with include accounting and auditing expectations, customs clearing for project commodities and household goods, and shipping practices. 4. Seek'to anticipate recurrent needs-.and to develope prcedures so they can be routinized. Establishing routines that fit all organizations' needs and procedures not only saves time and cost, it is also improves project quality. 5. Relevant project documents, such as project paper and contract, need to be reviewed for any special administrative needs or for any special administrative problems, either created or neglected in the document. There may be need to amend the contract or agree on special interpretation to provide project needs. Any special interpretations need to be reflected in the. files, either by minutes or a memo confirming the interpretation. G. Project Start-Up Many things need to be done at once. Housekeeping tasks will be important and will take much of your time, but in this section attention is turned to the project and to its responsibilities to serve the interests of the host institution. You need to rely on your own judgment to set priorities. 1. The only priority to suggest is related to the calendar. You could lose (or gain) a crop year, depending on how sensitive you are to the calendar. Check the cropping cycle and set priorities on what needs to be done and how much time you have before you have to fall under control of the calendar. 2. Review project design paper. Take it seriously but not religiously. In a very short time of living and working in a country, you will have information and insights the design group could not have. The project is now your responsibility. Take charge. Clarify the goals and objectives of the project, develop a conceptualization that can be shared by team members, and from these set team objectives and individual objectives. (See H, Objectives in Team and Task Management.) V-6



PAGE 1

a. One alternative is to assign each responsibility to an administrative unit or units. Thus, each subject matter program would be an administrative unit, even though small. By the same token area-specific research would be assigned to units, a team for each area. The technical support and liaison function could be assigned to one unit in the extension entity. It could also be assigned to several units, organized by subject matter or by geographic areas. In most cases the field extension agents are organized into units that would fit into a total system. Size of country and thus size of the research and extension entities will be important factors in organization. In general, the simpler an organization can be the better. In small operations, for example, one unit could handle the technical liaison and support responsibility, without subdivisions. As size increases, sub-divisions will be needed. b. Area Specific Research On-farm research teams (FSR teams) is one way to organize area specific research. These teams can answer directly to the research director; they can answer to a technical director who-is also responsible for subject matter research; or they could answer to an "area research deputy" who in turn answers to the director of research. In cases in which area-specific research is rather new and not well integrated into the program a deputy director could be useful in helping the research entity and the teams learn and perform this new assignment of responsibility. An alternative to on-farm research teams is the branch experiment station. This requires, however, (a) that the station adequately reflects the area's ecology, (b) that the researchers spend a great deal of time with farmers, and (c) that they work closely with extension. There could be a combination of the two. Even on-farm research teams need a headquarters. In some countries in which on-farm research is emphasized, the branch station is known as a production center rather than an experiment station. If the branch station work is emphasized, there needs, to be some on-farm work. If research personnel have trouble get ing off the station, extension through demonstration and trials may be able to serve the function of keeping close contact with farmers. Area-specific research personnel need to be to some degree extension workers, and this needs to be reflectedin their job descriptions. Their major responsibility is ; Ito test and adapt technology, but that is so close to extension that it is difficult to tell what is research and what is extension. They need to be sensitive to farmer needs and to extension needs and above all not to worry about distinguishing research from extension. IV-13



PAGE 1

4. An Ideal Case One case approaches the ideal. The team leader had worked with the host institution, and he and host institution personnel knew each other. He visited the country well ahead of the design activity and after evaluating the task, helped pick the rest of the expatriate team. He and the host institution personnel planned the design activity, starting with a conceptual framework or model and providing for a workshop involving the host institution and the expatriate team. The workshop defined the project objectives and strategies, defined the institutional structure, and identified resources. This activity did not provide a project design per se. It did provide an analysis of what the host institution needed, but in the form of components that would fit into a project design document. The co-leaders provided a document-outline, and the workshop, under forced draft, wrote the document. During the workshop, the team leader kept close contact with the donor, insisting on keeping him informed. There was a significant participation of the donor in the design workshop. After the workshop, the team leader worked as a consultant with the donor in completing the project design. IV-22



PAGE 1

F. Task Organization and Management 1. Introduction This section is written for the design team and the team contracting entity. The team leader is the key actor in design, and the task should not be underestimated. Much work must be done in a short time, but more important, critical decisions have to be made, and at least three sets of actors must be involved, each with its own interest and point of view. The team leader must organize and manage the operation. Communication is almost never adequate. Team members are often unknown to each other until meeting for the task. Many will not be familiar with the donor and its style and strategy. The country will be new to some of the team, and often there is less communication between the donor and host institution pers-onnel than is expected. The team leader must deal with all of these communication problems. He must accomplish the task. At the same time he needs to improve communication.Project design is part of a dynamic process. Don't be surprised if various donor personnel are not in complete agreement on what the donor wants to accomplish in the project. Also do not be upset. You may be expected to help develop the project concept. 2Preparation Paper Trail Advance *work will make the task easier and more effective. Most productive will be to discover as much of the project paper trail as you can, to gather information on the country and donor's interest and strategy in the country, and to have a briefing before leaving for the assignment. The single., most useful preparation activity would be a trip to the country by the team leader at least one month before the team' s assignment. The project paper trail will vary with donors. The AID paper consists of the country development strategy statement, the most recent annual budget submission, and the project identification document, progressing from the general to the specific. There frequently are other papers that you can check on. On set would relate to a current or earlier project closely related to yours. It will have generated much paper. Evaluations and most recent annual reports would be helpful. It may be easier to get them from the contractor than the donor. Check both. Another check you need to make is for studies done by the donor in connection with your project. Two major donors, World Bank and AID have headquarters in Washington, and both of them generate paper on most countries. Very often the other donor will have project documents or country IV-19



PAGE 1

It has been noted above that stability of the institution depends on leadership that is diffused throughout the institution and not dependent on one or a very few persons. This may be thought of as a diffusion of power, internal diffusion. Stability also requires a diffusion of power externally as well. Society will value an organization through the activities of specific groups who have interests that the institution's program serves. To the extent that these specific groups (indeed special interest groups) have a role in helping decide program and even helping defend program and other institutional aspects they become a stabilizing force. They need to know the organization's program and how the program serve's their needs. There is always danger of dysfunctional distortions, but there are also many interests served by research and extension, and the interest groups are frequently not aware of it. Institutions that deal largely with small-scale farmers face some difficulty in identifying interest groups that can lend stability, since the small-scale farmer is seldom organized. E-5



PAGE 1

working draft #3 In either of these latter approaches, adaptive research would be a function of the Technical Division. In the case of farming systems research projects, they would also likely be placed in this division for administration. Option B in Figure 3A suggests that such teams might be drawn frame, both the research and extension units (Johnson and Claar 1984). Obviously there is a wide variety of structures for extension and research units to carry out their functions. The two described above suggest ways for mutual support to be effected because it is critical to both units in their own self-interest. Figures 2 and 2A are examples of a cooperative approach, while Figures 3 and 3A represent an integrated system. The important point is that project design teams should keep the long-time functioning of research and extension in mind and plan for the essential linkage, regardless of the form they choose. Finally, there is another area where research and extension need to work closely together. This is in identifying the problem that constrained their progress in stimulating agriculture development and in reporting them to superiors and planning units, together with suggestions for change. For example, low fixed prices may make the adoption of technology unfeasible or provide little incentive for farmers to market their supplies. 010



PAGE 1

C. Conceptualize and Strategize 1. Your project needs to be developed from a *set of concepts that will help you and colleagues understand it and help explain it to others, particularly personnel that will review the project from design through evaluation. A model of the total technology innovation process is presented in Appendix A. You can use it, modify it, or develop one of your own. Experience shows, however, that if some sort of model is used both communication and analysis are improved. 2. The technology innovation process is a single process. Yet in most countries, two autonomous entities, research and extension, are responsible for its functions. Linkage between the two are and always have been inadequate. Two measures would increase the chance of developing this linkage. a. Farming Systems Research. deals with those functions of the technology innovation process that commonly have fallen between research and extension responsibilities and thus have been neglected. Attending to those functions appears to improve significantly the chances for effective linkage. b. It seems probable that single donor projects that deal with both the research and the extension entities would further facilitate this linkage. Figure III-1, derived from the'technology innovation process model, will give some insights into the relevant relationships. Design considerations are discussed in the next chapter. Original project development, however, has to accomodate these ideas. 3. It is important to keep the project within the country's resource potential. Most countries have severe resource constraints. It is feasible to develop a productive R/E system within those constraints if certain guidelines are followed. It is necessary that all of the functions of the technology process model are attended. This can be accomplished, even with a modest R/E system. One economy measure is to depend specifically on the international technology network, which is quite good and is steadily improving. That network can provide all of the science and much of the technology generation needed. Importing of technology needs to be systemmatic. See Chapter IV. Another economy measure is to limit the scope of the program, by commodity, by problem, area and by geographic area. There are always enough resources to do something well, never enough to do everything well. 111-3



PAGE 1

Select your design team contractor well ahead of time and arrange for for the team leader to visit the country at least a month ahead of the team's scheduled arrival. The team leader on this trip should be expected to accomplish these ends. a. He should understand what the donor wants. The donor may need to use his counsel to help make some final decisions regarding the project. b. He should do or initiate an institutional analysis of the Host Institutions. This would include a dialogue with the Host Government and Host Institutions on the nature and scope of the project and its role in helping achieve their needs and aspirations. c. He should do a tentative plan of work for accomplishing the project design, including an outline of the document needed by the donor. d. He can do other analyses needed for the project. Bringing the team leader in ahead of time would add little to the cost if he could do some studies and analyses that would have to be done anyway. It would cost time, in the sense that the donor would have to plan well ahead, but both time and money would be saved in the improved product. resulting from the improved communication. If there is need for studies and analyses to be done before the design team begins its work, you can improve the effectiveness of the design if you can use design team mem;bers for the studies and analyses, whether the team leader or not. 6. Anticipate evaluation in design stage. Expect more than merely a schedule of evaluations in the evaluation plan. Some guidelines are suggested in Chapter IV. Some experience suggests that it would be helpful to have some continuity between the design team and the evaluation teams and on the evaluation teams. This would consist of a design team member being on subsequent evaluation teams. It could also be handled by arranging for the same team to do all evaluations, or at least the same contractor. III-10



PAGE 1

+ Look for private sector support. It will often come as.a result of program activity that serves a commercial interest. This involves some risk, but don't be overly fearful + Consider a permanent position in the Host Institution with the sole responsibility of acquiring financial support. This position should be very close to top management to emphasize the fact that resource acquisition is a major responsibility of management. (c) Linkage with the international technology network is often inadequate, with the host institution being in a reactive mode and leaving all direction and initiative to some foreign entity. With a basic national capacity in research and extension discussed elsewhere in this handbook, the host institution is in a position to take the initiative and help set direction and scope of the collaboration with international entities. However, it needs a system and a program for doing so. Here are some ideas that can be worked into a project. + Develop a plan or program or system by which host institution personnel are to maintain contact with the international sources of technology, and assign responsibilities to persons or positions. Make linkage a significant part of the job description. + Provide subscriptions to journals and to other relevant publications or information services. + Provide for travel to scientific meetings and to research stationswhere relevant work is being done. Travel could be as frequent as. once a year. + Facilitate contacts between host institution personnel that can be maintained by mail and perhaps occasional visits. A few particularly good contacts can be brought in as consultants for the express purpose of establishing long time links. This-can also include helping to maintain contact with major professors or other professors of HI personnel. The contractor's home office can be helpful in setting up and maintaining contacts. Participants in degree courses can aim at establishing these linkages. (d) Most Host Institutions will be in great need of strategic planning. They need a long time plan that sets program direction, sets goals as to scope and program, and includes a strategy for reaching the goals. Without such a long range plan, growth is not likely to occur. If it does, it will be haphazard. If the institution does not have such a plan, then donor support will follow donor criteria because there is no national criteria. IV-10



PAGE 1

2. Research in this model refers to science, in contrast to technology. Scientific research seeks new knowledge, and it does so by abstracting from the real world. It seeks as much control over variables as is feasible. It is analytical. New knowledge, of itself, has no value to farmers, until it is put into a technology. Farmers can't use science. They need technology. However, most technology advances are based on science, and science is the basis for so-called breakthroughs. Technological advance is often stopped for want of new knowledge that only science can provide. 3. Technology generation puts together knowledge, technology, even folk wisdom into a form that serves a useful function. This form may be a commodity, such as seed, or it may be a practice, such as placement of fertilizer. Technology generation synthesizes. It makes new knowledge useful. Technology must serve in un-controlled conditions and is more useful the wider range of conditions it tolerates. The role of technology generation is to produce new technology alternatives. While there is a conceptual distinction between scientific research and technology generation, they often blend into each other in practice. They both use the scientific method, and both can make use of a high degree of training and ,creativity. Both are essential to agricultural progress. 4. Technology testing moves the technology from the conditions in which it was generated to determine its performance in other conditions. Eventually the new technology must be tested on farms--i.e. in the farming systems in which it is expected to perform. On-farm testing is essential, and if research and extension do not do it, then the farmer will have to do it himself. Farmer testing may be effective, but it will also be inefficient and will greatly delay technology innovation. 5. Technology adaptation serves two functions. It is the process by which a newly generated technology can be fine tuned to fit the farming system for which it is intended. It is also the process by which minor changes are made to fit the technology to a wider range of farming systems. Efficiency in the process is increased as the technology serves a wider range of systems. 6. Technology Integration is that fits a new technology into into current farming systems. It has three dimensions. a. One pertains directly to the system of production. integration is facilitated by a knowledge of the farmer client as a basis for selecting problems and designing interventions. It is also facilitated by research on related problems and by extension instructing farmers on its use. A-2



PAGE 1

2. Host Institution Management Virtually every host institution needs help with management, and virtually every project can be made more effective if it includes some management assistance to the host institution, especially if institutional development is considered a desired end. a. Inadequate logistic support for research and extension is a major problem. It will be difficult to achieve, because most LDC governments are under pressure to give employment to as many people as possible, and increasing the budget (outside donor contribution) will be slow, difficult, and uncertain. Do the best you can. Resist expanding the field extension staff, unless there is an exceptional opportunity. There are few situations in which number of field agents is a serious limiting factor. There are many in which support is. Field agent to farmer ratio has little meaning without adequate logistic and technical support. Move research into new areas before expanding extension. If there is no source of farmer-ready technology, extension has little function. Look to as many alternatives as you can list for expanding logistic support. (b) A second major problem is the lack of financial resources adequate to the function expected of the research and extension institutions. Maintaining support fo r an organization is just as important in public administration as is developing and maintaining a good program. Many techniques have been developed over time, and many of them can be fitted to the host country and host institution situation. Here are some alternatives that can be considered. + Make a record of performance and success. Translate into monetary terms and develop skills and program activities to inform those who hold the purse. + Present the research and extension program as an investment rather than a cost. + Make use of "advisory councils" and name people to them who know the system, who can legitamize the R/E program, and who can actually help influence fund allocators. + Don't overlook other donors. Donors may be a quasi-permanent source of support in some countries. IV-9



PAGE 1

F. Institutionalization and Management Institutionalization is a long time, continuous process, extending well beyond the duration of most donor projects. FSR/E needs to be institutionalized as part of and along with the total RIE institutional complex. It must be made integral to the processes of current institutions, which themselves are often not developed adequately to serve the needs of agricultural development. Improving research and extension institutions is one of the major needs of almost all countries receiving donor assistance. Their agricultural development will be limited by the capacity of their national institutions, of which research and extension are critical. Thus, institutional development is a major donor opportunity. The concept of institution has several critical elements. An institution must be valued by the Society. It must have an influence on individual behavior and on a scale that is significant to the economy. It must inspire confidence that it will endure so that individuals can plan on it. These elements impose some requirements of institutionalization. 1. The organizations must have an effective program, in order to be "valued" by the Society. 2.. The program must achieve a scope of operation that will make a significant impact on the Economy. 3. The program must achieve a reasonable degree of stability. Stability is not to be confused with either rigidity or stagnation, since an institution must also be capable of evolving to meet changing needs. Meeting these requirements is the responsibility of the directors of the research and extension entities. It is a management or leadership function more than it is a function of agricultural technology or FSR/E methodology. A donor project can help directly in developing an effective program, the first requirement, even though more than technology and methodology is involved. It is not so clear cut, but donor projects can also be effective in helping institutional directors with the other requirements of institutionalization. This issue is too complex for this section and is discussed in Appendix E. 11-7



PAGE 1

D. Objectives and Self-Evaluation This handbook has emphasized the use of objectives in both project design and implemention. Now it does so in project evaluation. If objectives are being used in line with these guidelines, it will greatly facilitate your work to use them in evaluation. If the project has not used them up until now, you can still use them--and at the same time demonstrate their value in project management. The most productive way for you to use objectives is to have the implementation team state and review its own objectives and then to do a self-evaluation of the project. Such an exercise will generate data and insights useful to you. It will also help you establish rapport as well as initiate a useful process in the project. In dealing with objectives, use whatever is written down, but also-spend adequate time in discussion with the team, both as a group and with individuals to allow them to explain the project to you. You should expect that the team can explain to you the conceptualization of the project and of project strategy. The team should expect to be asked to explain this conceptualization and should expect to have an opportunity to do so. How well the team performs in explaining conceptualization and objectives is an important element of theevaluation. A simple format will help the implementation team provide useful information and analysis. If the team has developed a format, use it to the extent you are able. See the formats suggested in the chapters addressing project design and project implementation. This exercise will enable the implementation team to help set the parameters of the evaluation. If its parameters are not consistent with your scope of work, i.e. the donor's parameters, check to see if it results from some miscommunication or difference in viewpoint or if the problem is more serious, such as a lack of congruence of the concepts of donor and implementation team or even a confrontation on some aspects of project management. E. Strive for Objectivity The emphasis placed here on empathy, a positive attitude, and the need for rapport should not be interpreted to mean that you need not be objective and even tough. Difficult though it is, strive for as much objectivity as is feasible. Analysts like to use the term "rigor," a term often associated with numbers. The problem with numbers is placing a meaning on them or making them relevant to the project. We simply are not able to provide standards or norms for some of the coefficients. Getting reliable data often takes more time than an evaluation team has, and many of the numbers may be relevant to host institution management but clearly outside the responsibilities of the project. VI-4



PAGE 1

B. Preparation for the Task Time is a critical element in an evaluation, time for preparation as well as time for execution. Under time pressure, pre-departure preparation is often sacrificed, even though a few days work before leaving for the assignment helps save time in the field and improve effectiveness of field time. 1. By evaluation time a sizeable paper trail has been established. Evaluation team should expect donor and implementer to help-establish that trail. It consists of project documents, project reports, consultant reports, and perhaps other donor documents relevant to the project. Try to get the time to study these documents. 2. A two-day pre-departure briefing will help the team get to know each other, to share common goals and concepts, and to gain an expectation'of the task and the division of responsibilites. This creates a useful mental set and enables the team to make better use of travel time than would be possible without it. Try to avoid having to arrive in field a group of strangers with little concept of the task. Here are some things to accomplish in the pre-departure briefing. a. Get the donor's views of the project, the 'country strategy, how the project fits country strategy, and other information on country, economic situation, political situation, and the like. b. Review technical criteria, conceptual models and other material that will help the team members to operate from a common technical base. There are many and divergent views regardind research and extension, and especially so when FSR/E is involved. With the use of models and discussion, the team can develop common concepts, at least for communication purposes. c. Accumulate project information, especially from persons who know the project and the country. This could be from the implementing agent, persons experienced in the project, or others. Accumulate some paper, but be highly selective in the paper you lug around. d. Begin to organize the team. Find out the interests and capabilities of members and help them develop expectations of their responsibilities. 3. Insist on and expect an in-country briefing as soon as it appears feasible upon arrival. Donor personnel will have varying views depending on their position in the organization. Normally the donor's country office is more your client than is the headquarter office.



PAGE 1

1. Leadership includes top management but also important is the nature of leadership that exists elsewhere in the organization and how pervasive it is. 2. Structure refers to the organizational form and is important in how it affects leadership and allows the institution to adapt to needs and to achieve efficiency. 3. Program is that which the organization does in fulfilling its role and is measured by output. 4. Resources refers to budget, land, personnel, equipment, libraries, and such things. 5. Doctrine refers to the mentality, attitude, and beliefs and values of the institution's personnel. B. Linkage Variables No institution can go it alone. It is an instrument of Society, either "collective action" or a "1set of rules valued by the Society." Thus it is Society which institutionalizes. The institution as organization must be linked to the Society in a variety of effective means. 1. Program linkages are those other organizations needed for the successful implementation of the institution's program. These linkages deal with both input and output. 2. Enabling linkages are those entities that provideresources arnd authority that enable the institution to function. 3. Normative linkages deal with groups that maintains the values and norms of a society. 4. Diffuse linkages are those general public relations types of linkages. (NOTE: Technically, analysts refer to linkages as other organizations which serve to link the institution with the Society. Relations, or dealings, with them are called "trnsatios."It is common, however, to talk of developing linkages with the other organizations.) These two sets of variables provide some handles, or some insight at least, for managers in attempting to achieve the four criteria of institutionalization highlighted above. It is obvious that leadership, especially management, plays the kcey role, since it has such impact on all the other variables, both institutional and linkage, and because it has to put the pieces together to achieve the conditions of institutionalization. But there also needs to be a diffuse leadership. There needs to be program and operations leadership as well as institutional leadership. This is needed for effectiveness. It is also needed for stability. E-3



PAGE 1

C., Evaluation Strategy Your strategy should be a general method of operation with c.ertain generalized objectives and style of operation. 1. Be sure you understand what donor personnel who are responsible for managing the project want and need from the evaluation. Don't rely too heavily on the Scope of Work. Take the manager's needs seriously and be sure they are attended. 2. Develop some concept of implementation team' s management needs that the evaluation may be able to help satisfy. 3. Search for positive aspects of project. It is just as productive to build on strength as it is to correct weakness. 4. Identify the negative aspects. 5. Place-the positive and negative into a larger perspective that is useful or functional. In general this strategy aims to gain rapport withboth the project and the donor by (a) seeing their points of view and (b) seeking the positive. Empathy and positive attitude help gain rapport, which in turn helps to deal with problems in an objective manner. An evaluation-holds something of a personal or individual threat, even though the evaluation team itself has no such intention. Your strategy needs to reduce that threat so that problems can be addressed separate from persons. You can deal with problems coldly and logically--once you have dealt with persons warmly and psychologically. 6. Recommendations need to be considered carefully. In some cases, donorsreview and modify your recommendations. In others the donor will take your recommendations almost without question, placing the responsibility completely on you. If your report is to be taken seriously, the recommendations must be significant, must be realistic, must address the factors most limiting success of the project, and must be compatible with the notions of those charged with managing the project. Being compatible does not mean agreement or whitewash. It means care in casting the recommendation so that it fits management style and project concepts of those responsible for the project. Resist the temptation to make too many recommendations. Don't make a recommendation out of a "good idea" if it takes too many resources, too much time, and has little chance of being put into effect. If you have suggestions, use a heading such as alternativess to consider." Many "recommendations" would be better described as "alternatives and do need further study before being adopted. Recall that the project manager and donor live with a project you are seeing only for a matter of weeks. Recognize the limitations imposed on you by the limitations of time. VI-3



PAGE 1

Appendix I Enabling Linkages Enabling linkages are so important and have been so neglected in institution building projects that a special word is needed. Enabling linkages are those that enable the organzation (institution) to procure the financial resources and authority it needs in order to be able to operate effectively. In one sense, research and extension are similar to a commercial organization. They must provide something to the society that is worth more to the society than the society invests in them. But from there on, the situation is very unlike that of a commercial organization. For a commercial organization, the transaction is straightforward. It has a product for sale. The buyer puts up cash for it, and the organization is able to prosper or not. For research and extension, the chain of transactions is much more complex. Satisfaction of the client must be transmitted through several groups until groups with authority decide to make the payment in the name of society. This must be done through social-political processes, not commercial processes. The figure below attempts to show a conceptualization of that process. It is nothing more than a schematic. The groups that operate and the manner in which they operate may be quite country. country specific. We just don't know. They also may be time specific and depend on the persons who hold key positions in the critical groups. The need is for the organization to draw this char for its situation. Its map should not be schematic. It should show the situation with which you are dealing. The project can help, even if this is not specifically required in the project design. Figure V-2. Conceptualization, Enabling Linkage I I I I I I I admini<-----< legis< ----< planning< ---< ?? < ---< strationj ~lature ~ office I research I I farmers Ii ---> extension > ---> > ---> MKT >----> consumers I _ _ I I __ I I _ I I _ The immediate client of research and extension is the agriculture sector. The market is another client, firms in both the I-I



PAGE 1

Figure ~ Sepaate Researc n Ext-ennion Oroanizations Director of Research Director of Extension Adaptive ResearchDeuyDrcoDptyietr I. DivisionTehiaFoFel Se rovi ciarice FSRE rolct Technical Liaison _and Support Personnel 0-8



PAGE 1

country, its institutions, and the actors you are likely to be dealing with. Determine at this time just what the donor expects of your team in preparation of the document. +Keep close contact with the donor throughout your assignment. If feasible, have a donor representative work virtually as a team member. Host Institution Contact +Seek as much contact with the host institution and as much participation of host institution personnel as is feasible. If host institution personnel cannot participate, counsel with host institution as much as feasible. Under your tight work schedule, it is not likely that you will achieve optimum participation. Whether participation or not, aim to establish team credibility and respect in the host institution. Let them teach you as much as possible. Discuss with them the models you are using and seek a concensus with them on modifications you make, if you or they think modifications would fit your situation better. Use a few days at the beginning of the assignment to seek rapport with host institution personnel before worrying about the project design. Seek some sessions in which host institution personnel and donor personnel work with the team. One of your objectives is to establish a three-way concensus-your team, the donor, and the host institution. Any gains you can make in this area will improve chance of project success. Team Management +Strive for complete communication among team members. A meeting once a day, with no others present, will help you build and maintain concensus, divide up the'tasks but still maintain coordination, share information, and develope understanding. Information often cannot be taken at face value. Daily meetings of team after rapport has been established will help you evaluate information. +After a few days of introductory work, emphasizing contact with host institution personnel, develop a tentative time schedule. You can use activity charts and a Gantt chart to show work schedule. Aim for at leat two outputs besides the design per se. One of these is intangible. If in the project design you can help improve communication and achieve concensus on the-'project between the donor and the host institution, you will facilitate the work of the implementation team. The second output is paper. Just as you are urged to discover the paper trail as you start to work, you are urged to* leave a good paper trail for the implementation team and the evaluation team. IV-21



PAGE 1

The project can include a codtponent to facilitate such a plan. Such a component would not be costly to the project. Most of the work needs to be done by the host institution, but the process is fairly tedious, and some" technical assistance could be useful. It could be by short term, persons, perhaps in repeated tours, supplemented by help from the project implementation team. Strategic planning could take place over the life 'of the project. Even though long run planning is needed, many actions need to be taken in the short run. A major issue in strategic planning is the extent to which the country will depend on international sources of technology and the nature of that dependence. This issue, in turn, is critical for the organization and operation of the system in the short run, starting today. (e) Research-extension linkage must start with management and must be encouraged and supported by management, even though most of the work and action takes place in technical-program activities. This subject is treated in various places through this handbook and needs to be central to the project. (f) Personnel management and development is another important issue for institutional management, given the fact that personnel is by far the most important resource in research and extension. It is common to think of personnel problems in terms of salary, but there are other issues involved. Personnel will respond to opportunity for development and to do a good job. Assignments are an important element in both motivation and development of personnel. The assignment, for example, to maintain contact with international sources of technology would help develop and maintain many persons at a relatively low salary. Resources to enable a person to develop a good program would also be both a motivation and a development instrument. This emphasizes the need for an active program in resource acquisition. Often the resources needed to enable a person to work are not great, and acquiring resources in small amounts sometimes simplifies the job. Another important element in personnel motivation and development is participation in important matters of the institution. Management can solicit participation, for example, in strategic planning as well as in managing the routine affairs of the institution. Training is not the only element involved in personnel development. The design team needs to consider this issue as part of the project's component in management.



PAGE 1

Appendix F Pre-DeDarture Preparation of Team (Prepared for BIFAD Staff by Gordon Ramsey, Consultant, 1933) In order for a pre-departure program to be successful in improving implementing team performance, the donor should plan to provide the following services. 1. Donor-specific training materials: a. Policies and strategies specific to country and project b. Regulations and procedures: + contracting + project planning and design + participant training + commodity procurement + financial management (accounting, budgetting, host country currency management, advances) + Donor evaluation requirements c. Country-specific political-cultural background d. Living and working conditions in country e. Host country laws, policies, attitudes toward donor, practices, institutions, counterparts 2. Project-specific information a. Mission documents--CDSS, PID, PP b. Project goals and objectives •c. Project status d. Donor and country officials e. Relevant technical, social, economic studies 3. Pre-departure requirements a. Passport and visa requirements and procedures b. Weight allowance c. Appropriate clothing d. Regulations concerning pets and special needs F-i



PAGE 1

transfer/adaptation, role of technical assistance, relationship of individual's role to the agriculture development process, etc. Method: -A standard module for this component should be developed by a Title XII institution or individual for presentation at home institutions and campus Orientation Officers trained in its presentation 14. Team Leader -Special Preparation Content: Administration and management, if needed; contract administration; establish lines of authority and prerogatives in relation to other team members, campus, AID mission, host government institution; briefings in Washington on U.S. foreign policy, AID country strategy, mission and project backstopping personnel; etc. Method: -Tea leader should be involved in all components of the program -Spend a full week in AID/Washington in appropriate orientation modules and special briefings with appropriate AID and State officials as arranged by M/PWTD/OT -Early visit to the host country -Extensive orientation by or arranged for by the USAID Mission F-6



PAGE 1

These are essential functions of the technology innovation process. They enable research to select problems of most relevance to farmers and to search for innovations most likely to fit. These fuctions serve to "finish" the innovation so that extension can be presented with farmer-ready technology. They treat a segment of the technology innovation process in which research and extension both have an essential interest. This fact improves the chances for research-extension linkage. At the same time, the Model shows the inadequacies of these functions if they are not linked to a technology generating function (or source of technology) on the one hand and to a dissemination function on the other. While they are essential, the FSR/E functions are not sufficient in themselves. (b) It can be inferred from the TIP Model that a country can rely heavily on international sources of technology, but from the testing function onward, a country must have its own capacity. The international technology network cannot provide them. They are components of Basic National Capacity. (c). Reconcile the organization of the R/E System with the technology innovation process, using the TIP Model. Use Figure IV to help (i) to determine a feasible assignment of responsibilites to the extension and research entities, (ii) to reflect those assignments in the organization of research and extension, and (iii) to relate the the two organizations so that the integrity of the technology innovation process is maintained.Think of the rectangle REXT as the total combined R/E effort. However, the area shown for each sub-unit does not measure its importance relative to the total effort because equal width is used for the functions. This illustrates an important inadequacy af a model such as this. While it is useful for conceptualization, it value for analysis is limited. Indeed if pressed too far as an analytical device, the model may actually do more mischief than good. You will need to experiment with your own lines. The Figure will help you to understand that: + The functions of the technology innovation process must be translated into job assignments, + That each job assignment has to be assigned to an administrative entity, + That the jobs must be related to each other within each of the entities, and + That the activities of the two entities must be related in such way that the technology innovation process can be implemented. I V-2



PAGE 1

Chapter III. Project Development A. Every country needs research and extension, and economic analysis is not needed to justify an R/E project. Other components are also needed--favorable policies, markets and infrasture, but you do not need to wait for them to be in place to start building R/E capacity. Potential of an R/E project is enhanced by two extraproject activities--including research and extension institution building in your policy dialogue with host government and seeking collaboration of other donors in building and protecting basic R/E capacity. B. Design the project to support genuine country needs and interests. Don't undermine these interests in order to develop a neat, easy-to-manage project. C. Conceptualize the project carefully and completely, using the technology innovation process model which has been developed from experience. Make use of international sources of technology and keep within country resources. To the extent that is feasible, deal with both research and extension in the same project. D. Expect relatively early impact from the project and build it into project concept. Visibility gained from an early impact can facilitate institutional development. E. Think in terms of basic national capacity. BNC can be defined for the country and can be on a modest enough scale that any country can afford it. F. The international technology network is steadily improving. Countries need a system for working effectively with it, and the project can be a significant help to this end. G. Don't underestimate your own potential as a donor in helping a country develop its R/E capability and its capability to work with other donor agencies and international agencies. H. Linkages are essential, especially those between research and extension, those needed to acquire resources, and those that tap into the international stock of technology. I. Develop realistic expectations of the design team. Chapter IV. Project Design A. Orient design to the single technology innovation process if you are working with either research or extension-or both. B. The TIP model provides a firm base for FSR/E and will help you determine how research and extension can function in collaboration with each other. OS-2



PAGE 1

5. Financial Plan a. Summarize the Project Budget. Use narrative and table. b. Host government contribution. This will often be in kind. This is an administrative requirement. It will be useful to report the total research and extension budget of the country. Show trends. LDC budget analysis is difficult. Do the best you can. c. Financial Tables Use tables to show as much project budget detail as is s feasible. 6. Implementation Plan This deals with the administrative aspects of initiating and implementing the project--selecting contractor, managing commodity input, construction management, timing, and other administrative matters. The course of action requested in "3" deals more with the technical or project operational matters. 7. Evaluation Plan The donor will have some specific needs and wishes to be incorporated. This section should look beyond the administrative requirement, however, to how evaluations can improve chances for project success. The plan should be developed as an important component of design. 8. Conditions, covenants, negotiation status These are all donor determined and need not cause you concern. 9. Annexes Use annexes at your convenience. It is a good idea to keep the body of the report fairly succint. Use annexes if you need to include very much data or discussion. IV-26



PAGE 1

3. After the team has reviewed the project and set goals and objectives, work with the host institution colleagues to build a workable concensus dealing with conceptualization and goals and objectives. The team may have to modify some of its ideas and concepts, but it is important to have a workable concensus. That does not mean total agreement. There are various ways to achieve a working concensus. They all involve interaction between your team and the host institution, but whether in one group, several smaller groups, or between individuals you will need to decide. 4. One of the first objectives to accomplish is individual acceptance of team members by host institution. On'e effective way to do this is to make a sincere effort to learn all that seems reasonable from host institution personnel about the country, its agriculture, and the host institution and its programs. Travelling with counterparts to learn about agriculture and to meet people is *useful. Don't feel compelled to demonstrate your own competence and knowledge until a specific need arises. 5. Start to think almost immediately how the host institution with project help can make a production impact fairly quickly. If managed correctly a plan for early impact can gain the host institution needed visibility, can help with linkage and other institution building variables, and can help your team achieve credibility. FSR/E is expected to test available and almost-ready technology, make some minor adaptations,. and move it to farmers. Keep the need and possibility of early impact in mind as you develop team objectives and work with host institution in setting project working goals and objectives. 6. Establish working arrangements with the host institution. It is seldom advisable for the team to be housed as a group. That gives it more visibility than is needed and impedes the development of an identity, with the host institution, its problems, and its purposes. The extent to which team members identify with the host institution is a good measure of project success. That identity can best be encouraged by dispersing the team to the working units of the host institution. This may cause some inconveniences at first, but it will add to project effectiveness and eventually to team member satisfaction. Once located, members need to seek to become stafff" and colleagues. 7. Keep the team and project visibility as low as the donor policies will allow. Your task is to support the host institution, and for this purpose the lower the team visibility the better. The project will automatically be "visible" in those places in which it needs visibility and to the extent needed. The host institution needs to build its self-esteem and selfconfidence, and high project visibility does not help. Team members need contacts and good personal relations, not visibility. V-7



PAGE 1

Appendix A Technology Innovation Process (TIP) Model.: The Technology Innovation Process Model is an over simplified conceptualization of a process that is more complex and exact than is generally recognized. As with any conceptual model, it does not intend to represent reality. It is presented as an aid in understanding and working with reality. It should accomplish three purposes, 1. One is to help understand and explain the process with which research and extension must deal. 2. Another is to stimulate the imagination and help gain insights in managing research and extension. 3. Finally, it will help facilite communication among, all of the different persons involved in designing and sustaining a research or extension effort. Technology Innovation is defined as an improved technology in general use by farmers. Unless an "improved technology" is put into the production process on a fairly broad scale, it is not an effective innovation in-terms of the industry and of agricultural developnment. I. The Model The model has eight components, commonly called functions. It appears here as a simple linear process, although in practice that is seldom the case. The model makes conceptual distinctions between functions that may be difficult to identify in practice. It is not necessary to distinguish among the functions in practice, and in fact it may be harmful to try too hard to do so. 1. The World Stock of Knowledge is held in the International Technology Network, largely in the International Agricultural Research Centers and in research and extension organizations of other countries. There is not a formal network with coordination and management, but there is networking activity among some of the entities who hold science and technology knowledge. The World Stock of Knowledge includes folk wisdom and traditional technology as well as scientific knowledge and advanced technology. Some of it is embodied in products-seed, chemicals, implements--some in manuals and books; and some in the minds, intuitions, and traditions of people. 'Much of it is present in-country. Any country can take advantage of this stock. To a large extent, LDC's do not have to catch UP to the world's technology; they can catch ON to it. A-i



PAGE 1

D. Objectives and Self-Evaluation VI-4 E. Strive for Objectivity VI-4 F. Validity VI-5 G. Extra-Evaluation Agendas VI-6 H. Evaluation Report Outline VI-7 Project Evaluation Summary (PES), Introduction, Executive Summary, General Comments, Evaluation, Extra-Scope of Work Issues, People and Places, Annexes APPENDICES A. Technology Innovation Process Model A-i B. Economic Analysis B-i C. Logical Framework C-i D. Technical Liaison and Support D-i E. Institutions and Institutionalization E-1 F. Pre-Departure Preparation for Team F-i G. Activity (Flow) Chart G-1 H. International Technology Network H-i I. Enabling linkage I-i ANNOTATED LITERATURE Team Leaders Handbook AL-i Hayami and Ruttan (Agricultural Development) AL-i Patton (Evaluation) AL-2 Arndt, et al (Research Productivity) AL-3 TC-3



PAGE 1

CHAPTER IV The DESIGN of Research and Extension Projects A Introduction This chapter is intended for the team responsible for working on project design. However, it is derived from an analysis of the interests and needs of the host institution and can be used as a basis of discussion among the team, the donor, and the host institution. These guidelines address both research and extension (R/E) and consider technology innovation as a single process, even though in most cases two entities share responsibility for implementing it. Orient your work to the single process. In R/E project design you do not deal directly with agricultural production technology. You deal with organization and management with the aim of improving the host country's ability to deal with agricultural technology. B. Technical Dein Considerations 1. Base your design on a set of models that are consistent with each other. Models will help explain the way you view the phenomena with which 'you are dealing. They will help test your ideas and suggest new ones, and they will provide a common orientation for all of the personnel who are to be involved in the project. That common orientation will greatly facilitate communication among the various groups with diverse backgrounds who will work on the project during its lifetime. This set of guidelines is based largely on the Technology Innovation Process (TIP) Model and derivatives from it. It is explained in Appendix A and summarized in various places. You can use the Model, modify it, or develop one of your own, As you develop and use models, please report your experience to FSSP. (a) The TIP Model provides a firm conceptual base for FSR/E. It also places FSRIE in context and shows both its potential value to the technology innovation process and its limitation if viewed outside that process. FSR/E addresses the functions of integration (knowing and understanding farmers and their farming systms), testing (in the farming systems by criteria of those systems), and adaptation (to improve the fit of the technology for the system and for similar systems. I V-i



PAGE 1

Technology World Stock Technology Technology Technology Technology Technology Diffusion Of Research Generation Testing Adaptation Integration Dissemination & Knowledge Adoption Figure A-1. The Technology Innovation Process World Stock of Agricultural Science and Technology OR Technology Technology Technology Technology Technology Technology Diffusion RESEARCH Generation Testing Adaptation Integration Disemination & Adoption ~-SCIENCE Ar Technology D0velmnt -.~~~ Resech Organiztion-m Extension Organization Figure A-2 The Technology Innovation Process A-4



PAGE 1

A. The Farmer's Perspective Farmers are the essential actors in agricultural development. They are the ones who will increase production, safeguard the nation's agricultural resources, and improve the levels of living. The central purpose of the RIE System, as it is of all other government programs in all countries, is to support the farmers in their critical role. Since farmers operate under the constraints imposed by the ecology and the macro-environment, national goals and policy objectives need to be translated into farmer goals. Constraints under which they operate are so overwhelming, so powerful, that farmers cannot react to national goals that are inconsistent with those constraints. In most cases national goals can be translated into farmer goals and can accomodate farmer constraints. FSR/E provides methodologies for understanding the farmer's constraints and how he deals with them. This understanding, in turn, leads to improving research which provides technology more relevant to needs. While there is variation in FSR/E methodologies, they all involve knowing and understanding the farmer and testing technology in the farming system by criteria of that system. FSR/E also requires arapport with the farmer, based not only on empathy and appreciation of constraints, but also on respect for farmer knowledge and ability as a manager and on an interest in the farm family welfare. Experience to date indicates that FSR/E is an effective instrument for building empathy, respect, and interest--and for improving morale of RIE personnel. The importance of the farmer perspective leads to an explicit meaning of the term "innovation" in this handbook. Innovation is defined as farmer utilization on a significant scale.-The simple existence of an improved technology does not constitute innovation, and the technology innovation process is not complete until there is significant utilization. The farming system is a production system. It is also a social system which exists in a larger political-geographiceconomic-cultural system. No national R/E System has the capacity to address all system aspects of a farming system. It is essential, however, (1) to be able to identify some few critical interactions with which the farmer must deal and (2) to obey certain constraints imposed by the market, infrastructure, national policy, and culture. R/E cannot deal with all problems of all farmers. It will have to make a conscious choice of clientele, of commodity or problem, and of geographic area. FSR/E can provide input for the choice, but some choice criteria are outside FSR/E. H1-2



PAGE 1

FIGURE I.. AGRICULTURAL RESEARCHEXTENSION CONTINUUM GLOBAL BASE SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER IIdLIBASI STOCK GENERATIONIz TESTING ADAPTING INTEGRATION Z DISSiENIDIFIO ORCLUR%'RESEARCH 0 EEAIN AINADOPTION IOWEj 19I. IoI IZ A,~ IU ---b eedback laoop 0. 0. dilfwional feedback path



PAGE 1

working draft #3 to observe and counsel field agents as problem arise. TL&S personnel are content people, program developers, trainers, and coaches in the use of subject matter to solve problems. Liaison role. There are many things that must be integrated and brought together in order for many new innovations to be recomended. For example, credit may be needed, new seeds stocked, and special fertilizers or pest control capability developed. In addition to maintaining liaison with technology sources, TL&S personnel need to view other farm service entities as a clientele. Units that provide services to the farmer can also be a channel to providing information to them. Hence, TL&S personnel need to provide information about what the extension service is recmmnnding to farmers to the leadership of related organizations and encourage them to help in dissemination. They are not regulatory personnel. In order for TL&S personnel to perform these roles they need to be viewed as a "friend" and supporter to the extension staff and the organizations with which they are expected to maintain liaison. They should not be asked to administer regulations for government or to be involved with punitive actions either within or outside extension. Such ass ignmients seriously impair the open communication which needs to exist between TL&S personnel and their clients. Specific aspects of the job description a. Seeking out relevant'technical information from all sources. This function' includes interacting with research colleagues as well as monitoring other sources, including international agencies. It means integrating information into a recommendation that farmers can understand and apply readily. It means developing programs that utilize mass media and other methods in tandem and taking part as the program is imnplemented. b. Interpreting technology and trend information for field use. This involves fitting it to categories of farmers, and packaging it into usable, saleable programs. c. Training extension workers and teaching them how to use the information effectively. This includes but must not be limited to formal courses. Extension TL&S staff must know each of the field staff in their area of responsibility and work with them in field situations so that they can. coach them through problem areas. Informal training may be more important than formal training in getting the job done. d. Making direct presentations or working with communication personnel to develop mass media messages to targeted audiences. D-4



PAGE 1

authority, relationship to USAID Mission, etc. Method: -Same sources and process as 3, above. 5. AID Organization, Programing and Contractual Procedures, Practices and Processes Content: AID/W and USAID Mission organization, planning-design-implementation-evaluation cycle, specific contract conditions, provisions and expectations of AID, host government and the Title XII institution, etc. Method: -Reading materials to be provided to individual by AIDM/PM/TD/c0r -Classroa presentation and discussion at Washington M/TM/II/T7 -Initial briefing by USAID upon arrival at post 6. Host Goverrment Policies, Procedures, Practices and Attitudes Content: Agriculture sector policies, host institution procedures and practices, authorities of the host institution, host government attitude toward AID programs, etc. Method: -Such information as can be gathered in Washington to be provided to individuals by AID -M/PM/TD/OT -Information fra other faculty members who have served in the host country -USAID Mission employees visiting campus -Heaviest burden for this topic will rest with the USAID Mission upon arrival of contractors at post 7. Project-Specific Preparation Content: Its genesis, purpose, relation of project to agriculture sector goals, relation of project to other donor activities in the agriculture sector, relation of project to the total AID program, host government priority for the project, etc. Method: -Background reading materials (PID, PP, technical studies, F-4



PAGE 1

investment than any development :alternative, when it is done riht The real issue is doing -it right. Use tables to show its economic validity and models to design the effort correctly. (See Appendix B for tables and Appendix A for models.) There currently is some question about the cost of FSR. Make two points. FSR, if organized and managed correctly, will make the total effort more effective. An important management issue is the degree of intensity of FSR. In the final analysis, each farm is a distinct farming system. if we can find the proper degree of intensity (based on the proper degree of generalization of the findings)., FSR/E can be cost effective. c. Social Analysis + Elitism. One issue is that a research project will create an elite, as you build the capability needed to do research. Face this issue squarely. Make the point that research is essential for agricultural development and that trained personnel is essential for research. Emphasize the value of investment in the human resource. You can reduce elitism by emphasizing M.S. over Ph.D., often a good idea for other reasons. + Beneficiaries. Personnel of the research and extension systems will be first beneficiaries. Face it, but show that farmers will benefit (from increased production.)Show also that low-income urban consumers will benefit from mo *re food at lower prices. Finally show that with increased farm income the small rural business man will be a beneficiary, and there will be increased employment opportunities for the landless laborer. Be accurate and analytical. These are all real possibilities. Do not deal in cliches and truisms. + Women in Development. Be analytical in your analysis of what impact this project will have on women and family life. Resist temptation to deal with the issue as "boiler plate." d. Administrative Analysis Can this project be administered with reasonable ease? Design it so it can and show that in this section. Also note the impact on management and administration of the host institutions, both while the project is in operation and after project terminates. Do not, however, make the project easy to administer at sacrifice to the host institution. 0 IV-25



PAGE 1

PROAG) to be provided by AID -M/PM/TD/OT -Briefing of Team Leader and team members by project backstopping officers in AID/Washington -Heaviest burden for this canponent will rest with the USAID Mission upon arrival of contractors at post 8. Host Country Historical Background Method: -Country self-study module should be acquired by Campus Orientation officer for individual study by TA Team members -Area Handbook for individual country to be provided by AID M/PM/TD/CT for study and reference by individual TA Team Faculty with special knowledge of host country -Students on campus fram host country -Initial briefing upon arrival at post 9. Host Country Political Situation Method: -Same materials, sources and process as 8., above 10. Host Country Social/Cultural/Religious Setting Method: -Same materials, sources and process as 8., above 11. Host Country Socio/Econcmic Conditions Method: -Same materials, sources and process as 8., above 12. Cross-cultural Communications and Adaptation Method: -Training on this topic is included in the regular AID/W orientation program for direct-hire, PASA and contractor employees going overseas -A training module on this topic might be developed by contracting with a Title XII institution or individual which could be presented by Campus Orientation Officers on hame' campuses 13. Institution Building Content: Concepts, theories, experience to date, technological F-5



PAGE 1

same purpose. Often linkage cannot happen because one of the entities is simply not capable of holding up its end of the linkage. The need to work with both entities was addressed in the section on project development. If the project as originally conceived does not intend to work with both entities, do what you can to get some resources and technical assistance into the other one, even if full participation of both is not feasible. C. Management Deig Considerations The technical aspects of R/E are sometimes the easiest to accomplish. Organization and management are more difficult, but often they are the variables that make the difference. Here are some guidelines that will increase your chance for success. 1. Personnel Training Training is one means by which you develop the human resource, but training may not automatically achieve the results you need. a. The field agent needs continuous training, and that training needs to be an integral part of the extension program. That is one of the reasons that the Technical Liaison and Support Unit is so important.* It must provide technical support to the field staff, and a principal means of doing so is by training. Field agent training needs to be specific to the technology extension is promoting. Extension deals. in information, and training is one of the ways it processes and manages information. b. TLS personnel need to be trained up to the level of the field research teams. The only alternative is for the field research teams, or some other unit of research, to assume the technical support functions, and that requires more trained personnel in research. c. For both research and extension, you can gain some time and economies by giving U.S. quality graduate training in country. This could be given for graduate credit, which would help insure quality. You can do it in off seasons, either by bringing in professors on short term assignments or by using members of the contractor team. d. The possibilities for self training are significant. Both research and extension are dealing with new information, and this experience offers chances for seminars in which personnel can literally train themselves. One of the real opportunities are in meetings in which research results, including on farm trials and perhaps even demonstrations, are reported and analyzed and in which research plans are formulated. These can be seminar-style, involving both research and extension personnel and accomplish an educational function as well as an administrative-technical function. IV -8



PAGE 1

B. Farmer Participation Since farmers, as producers and farming systems managers, are the key elements in national production, it is important that they participate *in the R/E process. Farmers can be thought of as firm managers and the R/E system as a multi-firm R&D department. Farmers are, of course, the major participants in adoption, and the earlier in the innovaion process they can begin to particpate, the more effective the process will be. There is a wide variety of channels for farmer involvement. These include interviews and surveys; on-farm trials in which farmers take an active role in implementation; discussion with farmers on trials to conduct and on trial performance; researcher observation of farming operations; participation of farmers in interpreting results of on-farm trials; participation of farmers in designing extension demonstrations and interpreting them, and others. Farmers can be involved as members of research and extension committees and can take part in formal research and extension planning. and there has been successful experience with farmer participation in formal research planning and analysis. However, they do not have to be formally integrated into the process in order to be "involved." They do have to have input into these activities, and FSR/E provides for a systemmatic way of getting the input. Seeking farmer input and dealing with it helps achieve rapport with the farmer. Farmers are experimental by nature, and in a group of farmers there are almost always some who are searching on their. own for better technology. Farmers seldom adopt a new technology on the word of R/E personnel. They almost.always either try it out in their own systems or observe it's performance in a similar system. One the strength of the extension demonstration is that it facilitates the farmer's own experimental process. FSR/E builds on this experimental nature of farmers to get farmer involvement. Farmers will be involved, either on their own or in collaboration with research and extension personnel. FSR/E achieves the collaboration. While farmers are involved as individuals, it is important to think of them as representatives of key farming systems. The, economics of R/E require a considerable degree of similarity among key farming system characteristics so that an improved technology can be applied to a relatively large production area. "--3



PAGE 1

+To collaborate with extension and others who can help disseminate the tested, improved technology. Area-specific research is often done by teams under a variety of names. These teams are key actors in identifying the factors limiting agricultural production and in putting the finish on technology. Much of their potential depends on how effective they can be in "conditioning" other elements in the national R/E System and even the international technology network (ITN). They must be related with the suppliers of technological alternatives and with those who can deliver their product. Area-specific research deals in a range of commodities and problem areas, but its program orientation is geographic area and the farming systems of that area. It is responsible for the integrity of the research program by area needs and farming system criteria. b. National Subject Matter Research National subject matter research has two responsibilities. +To support area-specific research, responding to problems and questions, dealing with both subject matter and research methodology. It is the first recourse of area-specific research personnel, its primary client. +To provide new technological alternatives to area research teams and farmers, that is. to provide technical leadership, to come up with something beyond what area personnel are requesting--either by generating new technology or by importing it. National subject matter research has country wide responsibility to maintain the subject matter integrity of the research program. Its personnel needs to be specialized by subject matter. National subject matter research efforts can vary greatly in size. They can be substantial and assume responsibility for technology generation, i.e. generate the technological alterna tives they offer the field teams. Or they can be very small, perhaps only one person, and work with the ITN to supply technological alternatives. Or they can be anywhere in between. Size will be a function of the country's resources and its strategy in research development. Even in any one country, some programs could be small and others large. No matter what the scope of the program's work in generating its own new technology, it must still be responsible for keeping up with technology developments in the ITN. No country can afford not to keep in touch with the international technology network. IV-5



PAGE 1

working draft #3 Appendix D Technical Liaison and Support Staff in Extension (This section prepared by J.B. Claar, INTERPAKS, University of Illinois) An adequate, effective corps of Technical Liaison and Support Personnel is essential. Extension must be able to reach out to all knowledge sources to acquire inputs. And extension, to the extent necessary, must have the internal capability to acquire and help adapt technology for use by its clients. Farming Systems Research projects which emphasize testing and demonstrations can make extension's job easier in this regard. In order to take advantage of this opportunity, technical liaison, as contrasted with administrative liaison, is essential, including liaison on research projects. Extension can help in fact, needs to help in its own self interest with field aspects of research, from identifying problems to testing technology. Research and extension have a vested interest in each other. Neither can accomplish its task without the other, and both need to set up liaison mechanisms for the other to plug into. Therefore, research and extension services need to remember that solving the research-extension gap requires transactions-each giving as well as receiving (Claar and Watts 1984). Extension and research share the technology innovation continuum and when the pressure for results is on, it is easy to suggest that the other end of the continuum has failed. Too, the two organizations may be canpeting for scarce dollars with great pressure on each to assure its independent identity. However, the more general problem sees to be that countries may not appreciate the whole continuum, thus leaving the sum of the functions poorly attended. It should be easy to sell these two organizations, each in its own self interest, to help each other do its job. Recognition of mutual interest is the starting point and an essential condition for successful linkage. Projects should be designed to make such self-interest obvious and liaison and support not only expected but easy. Support in extension has two meanings in this context. Support for research by involvement in all aspects of farmers' contact for research projects. But as significant as this is, the need for support of field staff within extension is equally critical to performance. In fact, such Technical Liaison and Support Staff (saetimes called extension specialists) are at one time a primary source of content, training, backstopping, and quality control. It may not be an overstatement to say that many countries discovered the importance of field extension and implemented it without an equally firm understanding of the parallel need for support. Whatever the reason, it now seems time to correct the imbalance where it exists and to develop a complete extension system with the capacity to place greater emphasis on content. D-1



PAGE 1

various research programs of the ministeries of agriculture. Second, the credit program of the CDB ought to be more effective by extension trainingof farmers to be awareof credit availability and use as well as receiving farner feedback on credit problems. Third, several commodity schemes in various islands are employing extension workers whose increaseld effectiveness ought to return benefits to these program investments as well. Fourth, a sound extension program should assist in the identification, planning, and implementation of new agricultural programs. If one-half of the benefits are attributed to improving farmer net income through known technology, this would amount to $460,000 to $665,000 per year by year five and six respectively for alternatives I and II. This would entail improving net incomes on an average three-acre farm by $50 an acre for 3,000 to 4,000 farmers each year, of 73,000 such farmers. This seems to be a reasonable achievement. Better trained, motivated, and equipped extension workers should be in the field working by years five and six with at least this many farmers. Fertilizer demonstrations and recommendations, more effective disease identification and remedies, and more economic management practices ought to increase farmers' income by the required amounts to pay back $460,000 to $665,000 in constant dollars per year especially with increased incomes expected from new technology derived from the research activities underway and being planned. Given the critical role the extension service must play in extending technology being developed, helping farmers increase incomes from known technology and improving public program investment efficiency, the returns shown to be necessary seem to be attainable. B7



PAGE 1

PROJECT HANDBOOK RESEARCH AND EXTENSION (Emphasizing Farming Systems Research and Extension) Farming Systems Support Project International Programs Office of Agriculture and Institute of Food and Office of Multisectoral Development Agricultural Sciences Bureau for Science and Technology University of Florida Agency for International Development Gainesville, Florida 32611 Washington, D.C. 20523 Working Draft #3



PAGE 1

working draft #3 9) Willis W. Shaner Linking Extension with FSR. Knowledge Transfer in Developing Countries. Edited by J. B. Claar and Lowell Watts. University of Illinois, 1984. Shaner develops a matrix showing the desirable interrelationships between extension and research T&V report in FSR projects pp. 45-55. 10) George Axinn and sudhakar Thorat, Modernizing World Agriculture, Praeger Publishers, New York, Washington, London, 1977 pp. 127. 11) For comprehensive discussion of these interrelationships see Knowledge Transfer in Developing Countries: Status, Constraints, Outlook, edited by J. B. Claar and L. H. Watts, INTERPAKS, University of Illinois, Urbana, 1984. pp. 11-12. 12) S. Johnson and J. B. Claar. Intersection of Farming Systems Research and Extension Organizational Implications. Annual Farming Systems Research Workshop, Kansas State University, October 8-10, 1984. D-17



PAGE 1

6. Inform the team on the personal reward structure of the host institution. That helps understand the behavior and actions of counterparts. The structure in which they operate is likely considerably different from your. If you do not know it, counsel the team to learn it and report it back. 7. Counsel team to stick to its own task and objectives, and not try to solve the many problems they will see or think they see. After an individual is well fitted into the host institution and has won respect and confidence of his counterparts, he may be able to work on some problems outside his specific assignment. Even then he should give attention to those things that are critical to the project, not to "all the problems of the world." Work on the extra-assignment problems ought not be allowed to detract from the assignment. 8. Communication is vital to team members far from home and their own institution. Inform them fully of who will keep them informed on what matters, who they are to inform on what matters, who is expected to help them on various problems'-what the communications procedures are among the team in he field. If these have not been decided work it out with the team. If team is new, anything worked out before arriving in country will be subject to change. However, it is useful to have something and to have an understanding of how it is to be changed. In general, the more communication the better, team members should not be inhibited in communicating outside the project, and care should be taken in using written means of communicating material or information critical to other persons or groups. 9. As well as it can be done, inform the team of other donors and projects that are relevant to this one and the nature of the relationship. Sensitize the team to the importance of informing itself of other projects and determining the proper linkages to develop with them. This is information that needs to be communicated to contractor support group. Don't attempt to build linkages that do not serve a real purpose. Linkages cost time and money and have no value unless.they serve the host institution, either directly or through your project. Keeping informed, however, is worth some effort. F. Backstop Structure and Administration One of the first steps in project implementation is setting up the backstop or support structure and system of management. This structure becomes visible only when it doesn't work. The need is to keep it invisible. 1. Identify the key actors the support structure must deal with. The donor and the host institution are the two principal organizations, but there may be others. Within the two organizations, determine who does what. This requires understanding something of their organizational structures, procedures, and positions that you will be dealing with. Know as many of the persons as is feasible, but they will change, so you need insight into organization and procedures. V-5



PAGE 1

D. Organizational Design Considerations No "best" organizational form for the RIE System has been identified and justified. You can feel fairly confident, however, that the assignments, discussed in Section B above, are needed to make the technology innovation process operational and that if provided they will indeed do so. The "assignments" have been derived from experience. Assignments divide up the functions and responsibilities. As a result they tend to divide the organization as well. Organization must relate the divisions so that the R/E program is de facto a single, integrated program. Organization refers to structure, i.e. how the parts relate to each other. However, itis important that the job description of each unit which has been assigned a responsibility provides for activities that will link that assignment effectively to assignments received by other units. Thus, job description becomes as important as the structure of the organization. Thus, two criteria must be satisfied: +The responsibility assignments must cover the four assignments discussed and explained in Section B. The efforts can be modest, but they must attend to the four responsibilities. +Job descriptions must be written so that the responsibilities are attended and so that each assignment is linked effectively with other assignments. When you are working with organizational issues, you must have more interaction with the host institution and the host. country than is essential on design of other project elements. You also may not be able to achieve a resolution during design of organizational issues. What you can do, however, is to open up the problem, get people started to be concerned about organization and organizational alternatives, and to improve the chances that the implementation team can address them nnnnntively. Thus, design should seek to make organization a relevant issue of the project, a legitimate issue for the project to address. It should also make resources available. This kind of issue will not take many resources, but the ones that are needed may well be critical. 1. Organization Alternatives There are several alternatives for organization and for combination of alternatives. Those listed here will be helpful in starting an analytical process that will lead to a relevant organizational form for the specific situation. Some may fit as they are. Others will almost certainly need adaptation. IV-12



PAGE 1

Figure 3 Director General for Research Extension Director of Research Director of Extension Director echnical Adaptive Deputy Research and Extension SUpport Ext. Field Division Services Adaptive Ext. Technical Res. Pers --Liaison and Sipport Staff FSR/ Te\ Ext. Field Units (Provincial) D-11



PAGE 1

country by country and even within country, depending on location. How visible are you as foreigners? What is expected of you? What can you expect? 'What cultural customs are critical? What is general reaction to foreigners? Specific attitudes towards U.S. persons? 7. If there are any security problems or precautions needed give realistic information and explanation of them. These could be in the project area, other places in the country, countries which team members are likely to visit, or countries and cities enroute. Be as realistic as possible. Do not raise unreasonable fears. E. Team Orientation, Professional Team members need orientation beyond the general which they need along with their families. 1. Describe the purpose of the project. The donor has a specific purpose this project is expected to accomplish. You as contractor also have a purpose. Be sure the team understands how this project fits both donor and contractor purpose. 2. Help the team-understand the 'difference between overseas operations and domestic 'operations. Because of personnel scarcity, they often are expected to cover a broader scope of responsibility than in the United States. They may have to handle questions of organization and management that never arise at home. If some concepts are new to host country or host institution, such as area-spec'ific research or the technical liaison and support function, spend some time on the principles of these functions. Some other parts of this handbook will be useful. You can use others to help develop an understanding of the concepts. 3. Let the team know the policies and practices regarding team identity and deployment in the project. How closely will the team be expected to integrate its members~ into the operations of the host institution. There needs to be a project policy, and. the team needs to know it. What will be the members' expected relationship to team leader? To his counterpart? To donor personnel? To host institution management? 4. Inform the team as fully as you are able to do the names of key actors in the host institution and host country. Although subject to change, any special relationships among key actors or between key actors and high officials need to be made known. Do not attempt, however, to be precise on just what significance these relationships have. 5. Try to develop some political awareness and sensitivity in the team, but do not overemphasize political relationships. It is extremely difficult for foreigners to understand and evaluate these relationships, and the cost of error is often greater than the consequences of ignorance. V-4



PAGE 1

c. Subject Matter Research This responsibility can be assigned to teams, if there are enough personnel to provide teams. If there is a severe resource constraint, there may be just one unit that is charged with keeping contact with international sources of technology. It would be constituted by specialists. The subject matter research personnel are responsible for a country-wide program of research. Members of a commodity team could be stationed in several places. There needs to be communication so that there is a single, national program. d. Relating subject matter and area-specific research. It is just as important to link these two elements together within research as it is to link research with extension, and sometimes it is almost as difficult. There is ample experience of the two elements working together very effectively. The key has been the recognition of the service the "other" group could provide. Area-specific research, for example, can give subject matter technology a far greater test than subject matter research can. It can also identify problems of much more significance and help evaluate them and plan research. On the other hand, subject matter research is the first recourse of the area-specific teams and is area specific research's link with the world. Area-specific reserarch has limited potential without this source of technology. Under severe resource constraints, personnel in subject matter research can be reduced with lessfharmful impact than in area-specific research. The country can rely on the world as a source of technology, but not for area-specific research. However, subject matter research has to be organized, planned, and managed to achieve this end. It doesn't happen simply by reducing personnel. The matrix form of research organization has worked well in some experiences. It is depicted in Figure IV-2. This shows that the subject matter people have to maintain the integrity of the subject matter program, countrywide, while accomodating the needs of area-specific research. Area-specific research is responsible that the research program serves the farmers of the area while accomodating the needs and resources of the subject matter programs. These accomodations are more fruitful and effective if there is joint effort in r viewing research results and in planning annual research programs. These joint research review and planning meetings are effective self-teaching activities. In the experience with the matrix/, all teams answered to a technical director. It should serve as well if there were a deputy to the director for subject matter research and for area specific research. IV-14



PAGE 1

Technology Worl Sock Technology Technology Technology Technology Technology Diffusion oReerh Generation Testig Adaptation Integration Dissemination & KnowedgeAdoption R AREA -SPECIFIC RESEARCH SUBJECT MATTER FIELD RESEARCH EXTENSION EC ,T Figure A-3m: Activity Assignments to Implement the Technology Innovation Process Technology Technology Technology Technology Technology Technology Diffusion of Reseach Generation Testing Adaptation Integration Dissem ination & Adoption R X E T Figure A-3b: Activity Assignment Work Sheet A-5



PAGE 1

working draft #3 that they can stock it, or supply it. And if they know what extension is stressing, they can help disseminate general information to farmers along with their specific product. This is a natural area in which research and extension personnel can cooperate. Reference Notes 1) Agr. Extension: A Reference Manual (Second Edition) edited by Burton Swanson, FAO, Rome: Swanson and Claar discuss the evoluation and status of Extension Services. 1984 Ch. 1 pp. 1-19. 2) K. C. Nobe Organizational Constraints to Greater Involvement in Agency for International Development -funded Agr. Programs in Less Developed Countries, in Knowledge Transfer in Developing Countries; Status Constraints, Outlook, edited by J. B. Claar and L. H. Watts, INTERPAKS, University of Illinois. 1984 pp. 22-30. 3) Vicki Sigman and Burton Swanson Problem Facing National Agr. Ext. in Developing Countries fNTERPAKS No.3 University of Illinois 1984, Sigman and Swanson made a survey of problems as seen by extension in LDC' s. 4) Everette M. Rodgers, Diffusion of Innovations (Third Edition) The Free Press, New York 1983 pp. 318-319 and 329-330. In these pages, Rogers .discusses the importance of credibility as it relates to change agent effectiveness. 5) In a USAID supported study in 1982 it was found that the technology existed to increase production of cereals from 50 to 70% and vegetables frame 160 to 260% if it were applied by farmers. The study concluded that the information was not generally available through extension nor was it profitable to apply it to several crops under current policy. Strategies for Accelerating Agriculture Development, The International Agr. Dev. Ser. U.S.D.A. July 1982 p. 7. 6) Burton Swanson and Jafar Rassi, International Directory of National Extension Systems, College of Education, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, p. 274. 7) The T&V system has been supported widely by the World Bank. A new edition of the original statement by D. Benor and J. 0. Harrison. The new publication is by D. Benor, J. 0. Harrison and M. Baxter, Agricultural Extension: The Training and Visit System, World Bank, Washington, D.C. 1984. / 8) Peter E. Hildebrand, The Farming Systems Approach to Technoloqy Development Transfer Utah State University, Logan, Utah 1983. pp. 15-31. D-16



PAGE 1

Logical or not, competent workers will often construct the matrix in-ways different from each other. It may be helpful for you to use as examples other Log Frames considered good. But do not hesitate to trust your own reasoning if it shows that each item will likely achieve the next higher item. Faulty Log Frames seldom result from the inability of designers to reason. Problems most often occur because designers do not take the Log Frame seriously and apply their reasoning to it. The project design personnel have the greatest responsibility in dealing with the Log Frame. They are the ones who have to produce it. Implementers and evaluators use it as a guide to their work. If the designers do a good job, it becomes exceptionally useful to those who follow. Project Goal is an overall or general objective to which the project will make a contribution. It is seldom logical to expect it to be achieved either by the project alone or during the duration of the project. It does serve as a North Star type of orientation for the project. Project Pups becomes more specific, and the project can be expected to make measurable progress toward achieving it. It is still broad, however, and a research or extension project will not likely complete its contribution to the purpose during the life of the project. This type of project needs to address institution building issues and aim for an impact or effect that will be sustainable. No project can complete the. institution building process and completely achieve the purpose. However, you can expect progress that is both recognizable and measurable, and you need to design with those ends in view. Often the outputs become the indicators of progress toward purpose. You need to think it through carefully, however, to be sure that it is logical and useful to do so. Project Outputs are the project working objectives. They can often be counted, (number of persons trained; number of teams working with numbers of farmers). However, there are quality measures as well. These are difficult to "objectively verify." Try to develop some "objectively verifiable indicators" of quality. The existence and quality of work plans and how closely they were followed may be such an indicator. The use of objectives in management may be another. Brainstorming for a few minutes by the design team will come up with other indicators. Incidentally, evaluation teams can suggest additional indicators. Inputs include commodities, training, and technical assistance personnel provided by the donor and can be measured in dollar terms as well as other terms. Technical assistance, for example, can be indicated by subject matter and by length of service. This section can be used to indicate some general strategies. It can be very specific. Being specific indicates care in planning and need not be regarded as so rigid that project implementation management has limited room to manage. C-2



PAGE 1

II. Some Implications of. the TIP Model 1. Technology innovation is a "natural" or autonomous process that has been going on throughout history, driven by an innate human desire to improve things. Research and extension have been organized to accelerate the process, not to replace it. Research and extension will likely function best if they understand the process and collaborate with it. No part of the process can be ignored. If research and extension (or other mechanisms for accelerating innovation) ignore a function, then it will have to be accomplished by farmers themselves--and the process-will be delayed, at best. 2. The model puts Farming Systems Research and Extension in context. FSR/E deals specifically with testing (in the farming system), adaptation, and integration. It is through these functions that research and extension begin t6 come to terms with the farmer and to take advantage of the farmer dynamic-. If the R/E system does not address these functions, then farmers are on their own. 3. The TIP model presents no clear line by which research and extension can be separated. As technology becomes "tested. and adapted," the "on-farm" trial becomes virtually a demonstrationon' and as "demonstrations" turn up new data on performance of the technology or even confirm old data over a wide area and several years, they are "on-farm" trials. Thus, the research process shades into the extension process. Extension is probably most effective when it is helping farmers solve their technology problems than when it is merely instructing them from what it knows. 4.'The TIP model implies that a country can rely on the international technology network for science and new technology alternatives. It implies even more strongly that the ITN has little to contribute from the function of testing onward. 5. The model also shows that FSR/E probably has reduced potential if left completely on its own. In other words it is heavily dependent on the processes of technology generation and science, just as science and technology must depend on it for the fruition of their efforts. FSR/E completes the research process (i.e. finishes the new technology) and initiates the extension process, giving extension a tested farmer-ready technology. FSR/E also has the potential for sending signals to the technology generation function on needs. Thus, FSR/E may have its greatest value in its capacity to condition the entire technology inaovation process, perhaps greater than its own direct contribution. Management needs to reflect this. A-6



PAGE 1

2. Intensity can be adjusted to improve efficiency. Carried to its logical conclusion, every farm is a distinct system. No country can afford that degree of intensity. Don't strive for 100 percent effectiveness in technology adaptation. (See Perrin, Richard et al :"From Agronomy Data to Farmer* Recommendations:" CIMMYT, Information Bulletin 27, 1976. and Hildebrand, Peter, Modified Stability Index ..... ) 3. In many countries there is no numerical shortage of extension personnel. Many on-farm testing activities normally associated with research can be done by extension. Shifting some responsibility from research to extension facilitates the technology innovation process and is con sistent with traditional extension responsibility. This shift has great potential for increasing efficiency of the system. 4. Specific attention to minimum capacity can also be an efficiency measure. In cases it is likely to be more efficient to develop and manage a system for importing of technology than it is to attempt a quasi "go-it-alone" strategy.. 5. There may be others. For example, some problems have more generalized solutions than others, some commodities or subject matters have a wider adaptation than others, some technologies are simpler to adapt to site than others, some technologies have far greater payoff than others and can pay for more intensity. Analysis You can do two types of calculations that will help get some idea of the likely economic value of the project. These are calculations. They may be useful in analysis but cannot really be considered analytical since they have to assume, estimate, or project the future. The calculations will however, give you insights on the order of magnitude of investment and return you are dealing with. 1. One method is to estimate as carefully as you can the economic value of what could reasonably be expected from the project. These estimates, of course, are extremely tentative. Even if you can estimate future production, you still have the task of allocating cause to this project. Another problem you face is how to deal with "consumer surplus," if this and other efforts were to be effective in keeping food costs down or even lowering them from current levels. This is an important item and is a major justification of public investment in agricultural research and extension. 2. Another approach is to set an acceptable goal for an internal rate of return to estimated costs. This approach eliminates the need to do an a priori estimate of the benefits of a project. An example excerpted from the Caribbean Extension Project Paper is given on page 6. 3-5



PAGE 1

working draft #3 What are Technical Liaison and Support Personnel? These are personnel who are usually specialized by disciplines or commodities,, who are concerned with the quantity and quality of technology to be disseminated by extension. Same are vertical specialists, such as commodity specialists; others work on system, such as farm management specialists. Still others cut across cmniydities, such as engineers. All are concerned with subject matter availability, with its accuracy, its applicability, putting it into useful form~, program development, supporting other elements of the system, evaluating impact, and feeding problems to research. Such personnel will give about equal attention to interacting with research'personnel and to preparing information and instructing the field extension staff in its use. In summary, while they are not supervisors, these support personnel must be concerned with all aspects of acquiring and moving information through the extension system and getting it applied by farmers. Hence the job description must be flexible so that problems can be dealt with on an individual basis. It is the responsibility of TL&S staff to close the functional gap shown in Figure 1. M~at-are sane of the comipetencies that should be stressed? Technical liaison and support personnel are difficult to find bec ause they need to be educated so that they can be respected by researchers and interact with them on research activities. Ideally, they should have the same type of training as researchers, plus instruction in teaching techniques, methods, and adult education. It is important that they also have better than average speaking and writing skills. They must also have an in-depth understanding of the practical aspects of farming. They must understand the farming system of farmers in a given area and why farmers are using them. They must be at home in setting out demonstrations and in consulting with f ield. agents and farmers about problem in their fields. This practical understanding is especially important in situations in which practical knowledge of farming and farmers is not adequate among new emloyees. %'hat are the specific tasks to be covered in the job description? A summary of the main aspects follows: Technical-liaison and support personnel are not administrative supervisors of field staff. This assignment should be carried by an administrative officer. TL&S personnel instruct, prepare materials and program, and assist the field agent in using the material accurately and wisely. Hence, it is important the TL&S personnel travel with agents to farm periodically D-3



PAGE 1

working draft 3# Providing TL&S staff with the tools and mobility for their job should be the last thing to cut. There is no reason to maintain a plumbing system if there isn't any water. Structure. Much of the impact of extension is determined by whether technology is accessed and brought into the system. Therefore deploying staff to make this critical job easy should be carefully considered in project design. Structuring the TL&S staff along the same lines as the research staff can facilitate caunication in several ways. For example, if commodity of farming systems assignments are made in research, making assignments along the same divisions in both extension and research will facilitate work. Being organized along different lines or covering different geographical areas makes working together more difficult. Reasons for difference are superficial and need not be tolerated. Office location. Proximity of office location facilitates communication and joint activity, such as traveling together to observe research underway. Therefore, project design terns should consider deploying TL&S staff so that their office locations place them close to their counterpart reserchers as well as to research sites. It may be especially desirable to locate sane of these personnel at field research stations or universities that are active in agricultural research. Such office locations tend to enhance the credibility of TL&S personnel and the understanding of their technical roles. In this way extension personnel can take leadership for field days, and research and extension personnel can work together in explaining research and how to apply it. Joint research and extension appointments. In the United States this technique has been utilized widely to facilitate research-extension linkage. In sane staffs, 70% of the specialists have joint appointments in research. This helps to eliminate differences in quality and training between these two groups, as well as to insure that ccamunication gaps do not exist. This may be especially workable at field stations where the two roles may be quite compatible and save much travel to the site fran the central office. Instructional support services. TL&S personnel should have most of their training in subject matter, although they need same training in the educational phases of their work. Instructional aids and communications techniques are important to getting the job done. Therefore the availability of persons specialized in communications are important colleagues to technical and administrative personnel in program planning and execution. Availability of communicators should be one of the areas considered by design teams. Facilities to perform these roles must also be available. It also facilitates the process if cammuications personnel form an integral part of extension rather then being placed in a separate administrative entity. D-6



PAGE 1

H. Evaluation Report Outline There is no standard format for an evaluation report. The one below is given as a starting point for you to deviope your own. It will result from your own style of operation, the scope of work, and your discussions with the donor and others. 1. Project Evaluation Summary The PES is also called the Face Sheet. It is a standard AID form, and much of it will be filled out by the donor. The body of the PES is made up of a list of actions to be taken against names of specific persons who will be expected to take those actions and the time at which they will be completed. The actions will be derived from your recommendations. This is one reason to keep your list of recommendations short and to make them realistic both from the standpoint of impact and actionabililty. 2. Introduction Give some idea of the purpose and conditions of the evaluation. There are several reasons for an evaluation. There are several evaluations in the history of'a project, and each will have its own conditions. Explain, briefly. Use one paragraph for a brief description of the methodology used in the evaluation. Explain how background papers and interviews were used and how that data was translated into an evaluation. Closely related to methodology is the way the report was prepared, who did the writing, who did the reviewing, and how the final report was prepared. 3. Executive Summary One to two pages, made u'p of numbered items that summarize your report. You do not need much explanation here. Simply assert your findings. List positive findings as well as findings reflecting problems. /Lst these findings in an impersonal style. Avoid such wording as ??X should be commended for...," just as you would "A should be criticized for..." List your recommendations separate from findings, and make them in summary form with little detail and no discussion.



PAGE 1

following their own criteria, in addressing their own problems as they define the problems. You can provide counsel--helping to understand the processes of management, helping to identify alternatives, and helping to analyse them--and you can provide specific help for specific problems, through either your own person or short term consultants. Of all the management needs three stand out. 1. One is the need for long-range or strategic planning. Developing a long-range plan will likely be more difficult for research than for extension. Few LDC' s can provide the research they need from in-country resources. They can get help from international sources, but will likely still have to make some choices. Some of their problems may have to go unattended, even with the combined efforts of national and international resources. Taking advantage of those international resources requires a minimum national capacity (a) to decide what to look for and (b) to handle the technology it receives, and a specific strategy or system for maintaining linkages with entities in the international technology network. (See III-E, and IV-C, this handbook.) This planning effort needs to be spread out over several years and involve participation of research entity personnel as well as other entities, such as national planning, universities, extension, and possibly others. Expatriates can help. One person, in country two times a year for three years, could be much more effective than a team of expatriates for a month or so. 2. The second major management problem faced by host institution management is the acquisition of resources. Seldom do donor projects address this problem, even though it is central to institutional management around the world. This handbook, in the Chapter IV, Section C, suggests it be included in design and lists some alternatve actions for consideration. Even if not included in the project, you can do something about it, and you can do it with few resources. The main thing is to address the issue and see that there are several alternatives to depending solely on the national treasury. The development and existence of a long-range plan will be of exceptional value in fund acquisition. 3. The third major problem is that of linkage between research and extension, a problem which has seldom been solved to any significant extent. Tlvis is difficult to understand, since the success of each entity depends heavily on the success of the other. There are several possible explanations for the persistence of this problem. V14



PAGE 1

e. Packing, shipping, insurance on personal effects f. etc. 4. Liaison within AID a. Contacts within AID for gathering needed information. b. Designing, with campus coordinator, and arranging Teem Leader pre-departure training in AID/Washington. c. Setting up appointments for specific contractor orientation in AID/W, IBRD, UNDP, etc. 5. Supervising preparation of special training materials first among which should be a pre-departure training manual for contractor employees. 6. A point of contact for counseling with university representatives developing pre-departure training prorams. 7. Counseling on language requirements and training. 8. Arrange for AID participation and/or participate in specific orientation programs at university campuses when called for. F-2



PAGE 1

ANNOTATED LITERATURE A Guide for Team Leaders in Technical Assistance Projects Agency for International Development Department of State Washington DC 20523 This publication synthesizes experience gained in what might be considered the first period of institution building, up to the early seventies. Much of the material was gathered in an AID-supported research project to study the institution building experience. The project was implemented by the Committee on Institutional Coordination of the Big Ten Universities. The book is case in the framework of technical assistance in institution building. It reviews the early concept of institutions and institution building and helps the team leader to understand his role, the context of his job, and the task environment in which he must operate. It addresses the various roles of the team leader, from adviser in his own right to leader and manager of a technical assistance effort. His responsibility to team members, not only in professional support but also in individual development is emphasized.. The team leader is faced with an unusual management task. He is often far removed from his own institution and must operate without the'normal management support his institutional administrators enjoy. At the same time he must maintain a variety of linkages with the funding agency, the host institution, the host government, and often others. The book helps *him understand the responsibilities as well as deal with them. There are chapters on training, preparation of team leaders and members, and project evaluation and a list of references. Although published in 1973, it is the most recent document addressing the critical position of technical assistance team leaders. --0Agricultural Development: An International Perspective Hyami, Yujiro and Vernon Ruttan Johns Hopkins University Press Baltimore and London; 1971 This book provides an exceptionally useful collection of data and analysis on the role of and the contribution of technology innovation in agricultural development. The data collection is thorough, the analysis is careful and complete, and the interpretations are insightful. The book is available in most donor offices. AL-i



PAGE 1

E. Evaluation Considerations The design team has an important responsibility for evaluations. It must do more than assert that there will be so many evaluations at certain time. Thinking through an evaluation scheme will help make the design more realistic. 1.,Suggest an evaluation prcs or plan._ There are several ways in which this can be done. Here is one. You can use it or make some modification of it. a. Describe the current situation in terms relevant to the project and make some projection of what the situation would be at the end of the project if no interventions were made. b. Describe the desired situation at the end of the project period. If a follow on project is anticipated, describe the desired situation at the end of the follow up project and anticipate what the interim situation, at the end of the first project, would be. It will be necessary to state the value system you are using--farm income, institutional change, number of people involved, total production, organizational and management improvements. c. Suggest an evaluation system First, list the constraints that are going to impinge on reaching the desired situation and give some idea of their seriousness. These will include budget resources, manpower, nature of changes desired. Be as specific and analytical as time allows. Then reconsider if the desired situation is realistic in the face of these constraints. Secondly, deal with three critical elements of evaluation design. What are the measures you will use to guage progress and accomplishments? What will be the units you will use to measure? In terms of those measures and units, what are the goals or targets you are aiming for? How will information be gathered to measure? d. Reconsider your original "desired situation." If it seems unrealistic, make adjustments in your evaluation design. e. Design into the project a review of the evaluation design by the implentation team and a revision. In this way the evaluation design can become a useful tool for project implementation management. IV-16



PAGE 1

Figure 2A mSeparate Research and Extension Organizations Director of Research Director of Extension (Option A) daptieU Research Administrative'Deputy Director for -Deputy Director Division Liaison Tcical Services for Field Services (Option B) FSP/E ProjectsTechnical Liaison -Technical Liaison Su=rt Personnel I -I Provincial Director I Provincial Technical Liaison Support Personnel Services D-9



PAGE 1

5. Developing a good project image has two components. The project must be well managed, but in large part image results from style of operation. These two are more closely related than they seem. Here are some guidelines. a. Don't emphasize problems in conversations and reports. Emphasize positive factors. b. Face problems squarely in a systemmatic problemsolving mode. Face them promptly. Don't let them linger. This is especially true of problems internal to the project. Avoid situations that will cause project members themselves to emphasize project problems in their contacts and conversations. c. If a problem has no solution, accomodate it. it may be necessary to change strategy or objectives. Or it may be necessary to live with it. d. If you have to live with it, ignore it to the extent posssible, certainly in conversations and reports. e. Make the most of the positive elements of the project, especially outputs and effective project action. f. Be able to explain your project clearly, in terms of objectives, strategy, and accomplishments. Also be sure the entire team is able to. This requires good communication and team interaction. g. Keep contact with other groups who have an interest in your project and help them to keep informed. v-11



PAGE 1

Figure 3 A Director General for tension and Research I 1 Director of Research (Option A) Director of Extension DirL ctor Technical Adaptive Research and Extension Su rt Division Adaptive Research Extension Technical Personnel Liaison and Support Staff FS/E Telan FSP/E Teams (Option B) Field Service D-12



PAGE 1

APPENDIX B Economic Analysis It-is virtually impossible to calculate the economic benefits of a single project in research or extension. If the project is successful, most of its benefits will come after the project. Predictions that far in the future simply require too many assumptions to have much value. Still, it is possible to appreciate the economic value of technology innovation. The economics of research has been thoroughly studied, perhaps as thoroughly as any other investment for development. Much of this analysis is reported in: Arndt, Thomas, Dana Dalrymple, and Vernon Ruttan: 'Resource Allocation in National And International Agricultural Research; University of Minnesota Press, 1977. Some seven chapters are devoted to the economics of research. They generally indicate that "returns to a great deal of agricultural research have been two to three times higher than than returns to other agricultural investment." (p.4) No work since then seriously challenges this contention. Many of these studies are summarized in tables B-i and B-2. Methodology of these studies has been examined closely. The arguments that returns are understated are about equal to those that returns are overstated. The challenges come from methods of handling costs and returns, more than from the analytical methodology. 'While the results of these studies give the proper signals, they do require some explanation. These studies are ex post facto analyses dealing with indigenous technology generation as well as with imported technology. They are not accurate predictors of any one research or extension project. Rather they indicate the inherent potential in technology innovation, particularly research. The real issue, then, is not whether research is a good investment, but how can it be organized and managed so that much of its potential can be achieved. Minimum Capacity Many countries today are going to have to rely heavily on imported technology. Importing technology from the international network raises the issue of national capacity. It is commonly accepted that a country needs a certain basic or minimum capacity in order to be able to take advantage of technology from the international network. Robert Evenson has done some tentative analysis of the returns to imported technology associated with the level of national capacity. It shows that the benefit stream associated with a national investment of $1,000 can be as high as $55,000 with "average indigenous research capability," compared to $1700 with "no indigenous capability." (See Arndt et al, Table 9-1, p 250.) B-i



PAGE 1

One aspect of leadership presents a difficult situation. There is no doubt that strong, entreprenurial leadership is needed in order to build an organization. It is also just as clear that as institutional status is achieved, leadership must become more diffused throughout the organization and decision making along with it. If it does not, new management can do about what it wants, and the institution cannot be said to have stability. Resources will be a major limiting factor, especially in expansion, but also in seeking to be effective and stable. This is linked directly with the enabling linkage. An institution must be valued by Society, and it must be valued in a practical manner. There has been little attention in donor projects to-the development of enablilng linkages. It is a key factor. Personnel is the single most important resource, and it cannot be bought. It can be developed, and it can be managed to increase its effectiveness and even its retention. This is a longer range activity and strongly suggests the need for long run or strategic planning. Doctrine is probably one of the best measures or predictors of an institution's effectiveness, upon which so much can be built by good management. Doctrine itself is a function of management, Research and extension organizations need a doctrine that values practical utility. This is almost always translated into a desire to serve a specific sector of the population. The doctrine must fit the purpose of the institution. If it does not fit, effectiveness is impaired. Management can develop and articulate doctrine. It is not a fixed variab 'le. Donor projects can make a contribution but can't overcome basic problems in host institution management. Expansion requires resources--money and people. And it requires long-run planning. Long run planning puts a premium on the leadership resource. Top management cannot do the job alone. Forced-draft planning under pressure from donors has limited value if any. A project can contribute to long run planning with relatively little resource. Time is important in putting a plan together, and that is available if it is not wasted. No capital is needed. Some special technical assistance may be useful, but in most cases it is not needed in large amounts. Leadership has to visualize the adequate scale, be. up to managing a larger scale operation, and arrange for the resources to support a larger scale operation. Scale has to be related to other factors. It is very easy to attempt a scale beyond resources, resulting in a loss of effectiveness, which in turn makes resource acquisition more difficult. There is a tendency in many institutions to attempt to goit-alone, or perhaps a hope. None can. R/E institutions need inputs--whether personnel from national schools or foreign. They both need technical and scientific input. And they both need somewhere to go with their output. For all these problems and more they need collaboration with other institutions. They need to trade--to provide a service in exchange for a service. E-4



PAGE 1

H. Objectives in Team and Task Management This handbook gives a considerable emphasis to the value and use of objectives. It suggests that the design team use objectives as an organizing device and that evaluations be organized largely around objectives. These short term teams can make good use of objectives, but the objectives that make the difference are the ones that the implementation team develops and works with. A team can seldom work effectively with objectives developed by someone else. Besides, with its chance to come to know and understand the project environment the team can be expected -to come up with better objectives. .Your team needs its own, objectives, to serve its own purpose, following its own defininitions. They should be consistent with the design team's objectives, but the important thing is that you follow your own criteria. Writing objectives requires information, thought, analysis and discussion. This presents a good opportunity to involve the team as a team. This involvement will likely give better analysis than is possible otherwise, but it also encourages team member participation, which always improves chances for success. Project team participation in this exercise is not inconsistent with the concept of officing the team with host institution units. Host institution interests can be better reflected in. the team's plans, if team is dispersed. There may come a time when host institution personnel will be involved with the team in reviewing and revising objectives. Objectives need to be revised as the situation changes-or as you accumulate more infomration and understanding of it. They need to be under continual (or periodic) review, and that requires monitoring and evaluation. Objectives need to be stated correctly. They are most useful when: They are stated as declarative statements. They describe a future state or situation (not simply a process or set of activities.) They contain the specifics related to a problem solution. They can probably be accomplished within project constraints. You can deal with a heirarchy of objectives, i.e. have short term objectives that are means for moving toward a long-term objective. This ranking of objectives should not get too complicated or detailed. For detailed planning, use other management devices such as the activity network or Delta Chart. You can deal with objectives that are common for the team, or with individual objectives or subgroup objectives.



PAGE 1

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON I:NGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOl.. EM-I NO.4, NOVEMISBER 1971 probabilistic and industrial engineering applications," J. Ind. 17 A. L. lannone, Management Program Planning and Control With Eng., vol. 17. June 1966, pp. 263 -301. PERT, MOST and LOB. Englewood Cliffs. N.J.: Prentice-Hall. (61 Flowchart Symbols for Infbrmation Processing, American Stand|8) R. A. Frosh, "A new look at systems engineering," IEEE Specards X-3.5-1966. trum, vol. 6, Sept. 1969, pp. 24 -28. Reprinted by permission from IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT Vol. EM-18, No. 4. November. 1971. pp. 132-139 Copyright 1971, by The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.. Inc. PRINTED IN THE U.S.A. G-8



PAGE 1

WARFIELI) AND) HILL: I)L.LTA CHIART a b 7 6 -' d 9 13 14_1 5' 1 17. .1 1. Writnee Afnd Debug Fishert Discriminant Program 1 .2 Generate 20-Class Fisher Features 1.3 Carry out 20-Class Training 1.4 Per form 20-Clasa Test 1.5 Develop and That Improved Pr processing Techniques 1.6 Writ: and Debug Programs for Binary Precision Teats 1.*7 PerVform Parametric 20-Class Precisi1. Tests 1.8 Generate 5O-Clasa Fisher Features 1.9 Carry Out 50-Cl a; Training 1.10 Perform 50-Class Parametric Tests to Determine Minism= Number of Features 1.11 Evaluate Teat Results and R ete to Imp kementation Requirements syare,.Tnteerto 1.12 Define Basic Performance end Interface Requiremnts 1.13 Develop Functional Block 1.14 Translate11 System Functions and Performance Into Subsystem RequireoentAs .. ltra 1.15 Investigate adAss len-IIIIIII tive itardware Tehnoloqi*6 and Select Most Applicable 1.11, Develop Imp lamentation and Fabrication Concepts 1.17 Conduct Trade-Off Studies 1.18 Cartry Out Detailed Logic Design SZTL LZ: NO4u2 2L1 2.1 Generate Address Word Store 2.2 Coeput: Ave:,,r*eDistances 2 .3 Develop System Control Ta pe for 2.4 Perform Small-Scale WordRaeo aiio Tests 2.5 Peformt LarTe-le Wo"' Recoiniti on Tests 2.6 Evaluate Inplamentability of Word-locognition Concept 3.1 Write and Debug C1N Training N Prosta 1.2 Per form and valuat* 20-Class Tesat uIt Ci2 Training 3.3 Wre an ubu%; Program To Generat e Nrtr.P Information 3.4 Carry Out Vruposcd Iterative Tr Caining rocedure with 3.5 Perform 20-Class Test Based UJpon I terative Training 3., Analyse res t Results Reep~rts Plepare Bimonthly, rrogtats Reports Prepare Work Creup Reports----------Prepaure Combhine, W.rk Group ...i ricat RportG6



PAGE 1

One is that the two entities are working at opposite ends of the technology innovation process and ignoring the center functions. This means that they have little or no chance for contact, interation, and linkage. To resolve this problem, it may require a change in program or organization. A second explanation is that the manner in which each one defines its purpose does not require linkage. This would hold that research defines its purpose as doing research with no responsibility for dissemination. It holds that extension views its job as routine dissemination when someone gives it something to disseminate. Neither defines its purpose as changing and improving agricultural production. This indicates that neither entity sees any real purpose in linkage and has not assigned some group or some individuals the specific responsibility to develop and maintain linkages with the other. A third explanation is that with research oriented to science and technology and with extension composed largely of field agents with sub-professional training there is too much social distance between the two groups that interaction, collaboration, and linkage is not likely. Another manifestation of this situation is that extension, with so little attention to technical liaison and support does not have the capacity to hold up its end of the research-extension linkage. It may be that one of the important things you can do is to understand the persistence of the problem. Once the problem is understood and stated, there may be some fairly clear signals as to how to resolve it. V-i15



PAGE 1

I. Other Design Considerations These considerations have been distilled from the experience of design teams and implementation and evaluation teams who have dealt with design. 1. Do not expect the design team to initiate project implementation. An informal survey or rapid reconnaissance made during project design or before implementation will serve little of its intended purpose in facilitating the R/E process. It is necessary for the implementing FSR/E team to participate in the process. Learning.from another's rapid survey is not usually adequate. On the other hand, it is reasonable to expect that the design effort lead to an improved understanding between donor and the host country on the nature and requirements of the technology innovation process and the way that the project will help meet some of those requirements. 2. Do not rely very heavily on negotiation to solve some fundamental problems, such as memoranda of understanding to achieve research and extension linkage or pre-project agreement to provide,-national financial support. Until there is a solid product or process that justifies research-extension linkage, it will not happen. The project should address this issue and solve it over time. 3. Be careful that you do not facilitate project management at the cost of impeding institutional development and linkages. A project management unit. outside the Host Institution management framework eliminates an-opportunity to address basic management problems and denies *the institution an experience. Institutional management can well be addressed in the project. 4. Secunding extension personnel to research facilitates project management, but it leaves the extension entity outside the process and gives it no chance to learn along with research. Design the project so that extension is involved and can demonstrate to itself its own interest in linking with research. Coordinating committees or special coordinating units are seldom very effective. Linkage will come when linkage activities (a) serve the self-interests of both parties to the linkage and (b) they are provided for in position description and personnel evaluation criteria. 5. Allow plenty of time for project design. The time provided for most project design is adequate for the work to be done, but it often is not adequate for developing a working concensus among the donor, the Host Institution, and the design team. This is especially important in collaborative mode projects. Here are some considerations. 111-9



PAGE 1

C. Donor Processes Donor assistance takes many forms, one of which is the bilateral project, to which this handbook is oriented. Some of these projects are financed by loan, others by grant. In some cases the donor contracts with the implementer. In others, funds are made available to the host country, who then contracts for technical assistance. Project processes vary also, but some general activities are common. This handbook is directed to the common elements. These stages are commonly found in the life of a project, even though the form will vary. 1. The donor will have a country strategy. Some may not be written, but others may be a comprehensive document based on extensive analysis. 2. Project development is the stage in which the donor decides in general terms what the project is and how much will be invested in it. 3. Project design determines the size of the project, the activities to be financed, the composition of the budget, the course of action, the amount and nature of technical assistance and other such matters, often in considerable detail. It is common to contract a short term team to help with this effort and to do studies that lead to it. Donors vary in their own direct input into project design but do assume final responsibility. The design is the official document of the donor's formal approval process. 4. Implementation almost always involves a team to provide technical assistance. Donors vary in how much they participate in this phase and how much they depend on the implementer for project management. The relative role of technical assistance in a project also varies. Typically a loan financed project will have less technical assistance than a grant financed project. 5. Evaluation is not really a phase, since it often occurs more than once in a project and is anticipated as early as project design. Good management provides for constant attention to evaluation. However, the specific evaluation activities occur after the other phases. D. Handbook Organization and Use I This handbook is organized around the general project process. After a chapter on Principles of FSR/E, there are four chapters, corresponding to the four phases in the life of a project listed above--development, design, implementation, and evaluation. Material that is common to more than one chapter is contained in the Appendixes. A final section provides a list of 1-2



PAGE 1

Table B-2. Summary of Selected Sources-of-Growth Type Studies of Agricultural Research Productivity. Annual Study Period Internal and Year Country Subject Studied Rate of of Study Return Tang Japan Aggregate 1880-1938 35 (1963) Griliches USA Aggregate 1949-59 35-40 (1964) Latimer USA Aggregate 1949-59 NS* (1964) Peterson USA Poultry 1915-60 21 (1966) Evenson USA Aggregate 1949-59 47 (1968) Evenson South Africa Sugarcane 1945-58 40 (1969) Evenson Australia Sugarcane 1945-58 50 (1969) Evenson India Sugarcane 1945-58 60 (1969) Ardito Barletta Mexico Crops 1943-63 45-93 (1970) Evenson & Jha India Aggregate 1953-71 40 (1973) Kahlon, Saxena, Bal, & Jha India Aggregate 1960/61(1975) 1972/73 63 Source: Arndt, Thomas, Dana Dalrymple and Vernon Ruttan, Editors: Resource Allocation and Productivity in National and International Agricultural Research: University of Minnesota Press, 1975, p. 7. Studies made in 1975 are reported in this volume and others are cited. Not significant B-4



PAGE 1

C.Problem-Solving Approach FSR/E is based on the standard problem-solving method, which consists of five steps. 1. Problem is identified, or an opportunity is identified, based on a thorough knowledge of predominant farming systems and of relevant technology. 2. Alternative possible solutions are formulated or developed if you are working from a problem that has been identified. 3. These alternatives are tested. If a probable opportunity has been identified, that technology is also tested. Farmer orientation and involvement plays a key role in this st~p. Some screening can be done on the experient staton, but testing must eventually be done in the farming system for which the innovation is intended and by criteria of the system. 4. The technology is modified (adapted) to the needs of the client farming system, based on results of on-farm trials. 5. Acceptable solution is disseminated. Dissemination is literally an extension of the R and D process. As the technology becomes nearly finished, the on-farm test becomes almost a demonstration. Further, FSR/E requires continual feedback from the farmer and extension on the performance of a tested technology, such that the extension demonstration is something of a test. The research function of the technology innovation process blends into the extension function to such such an extent that they cannot be distinguished. FSR/E is iterative. If a technology does not pass the test, other alternatives are sought for testing. If problems show up in dissemination, they are referred back to an earlier step in the technology innovation process. FSR/E requires the participation of as many disciplines as the R/E System can afford. Where resources are limited, personnel training can be less specialized to gain some interdisciplinary benefits. FSR/E experience itself can also train personnel to handle a broader range of problems. I-4



PAGE 1

EXAMPLE To handle the uncertainty of appropriate internal rates of return and likely time horizon for benefit realization, two possible annual benefit levels are given to illustrate the most likely range. The following assumptions are used in alternatives I and II. Alternative I Alternative II 1. The project has a useful 1. The project has a useful life life of 20 years. of 15 years. 2. The opportunity cost of 2. The opportunity cost of capital is 12%. capital isl5%. 3. The majority of costs are 3. The majority of costs are incurred during the first incurred during the first five years. five years. 4. The benefits begin in year 4. The benefits begin in year 3 2'at 1/3 of eventual annual at 1/3 of the eventual annual benefit level, increase to benefit level, increase to 1/2 in year 3, increase to 1/2 in year 4, to 3/4 in year 2/3 in year 4, and reach 5, and reach full level by full level by year 5 and year 6 and remain constant constant through year 20. through year 15. No inflation factor is used in estimating costs, and hence the benefits must be interpreted as constant dollars as well. The results of the cost benefit analyses are given in Tables VII and VIII. Total public sector investment in agriculture was estimated at $12.5 million in 1978. With increased emphasis on agricultural investments in numerous development organizations, IBRD expects this level of investment to increase over-time. The annual benefits needed to realize the internal rates of returns to investment in alternatives I and II represent 7 dand 10 percent of thiss annual public sector investment, respectively. Increased net income of farmers as a result of improved extension delivery of known technology onlymight reasonable be expected to account for one-half of the annual benefit levels derived from alternatives I and II. In this case, the project would have to increase the effectiveness of public agricultural investments by 4 to 5 percent of the 1978 level. Since these investlments particularly from donor agencies seem likely to increase in constant dollars through time, one-half of this extension project benefits would represent less than 4 percent of these investments. A small increase of less than 4 percent in efficiency of these programs through a more effective extension service seems attainable. First,the extension program will focus on the delivery of research from CARDI, WINBAN, CARDATS, UWI, and the B-6



PAGE 1

1. Take charge. Monitoring and evaluation are as important as any other components of management. In your own interests, you need continuous evaluation. Start at once to develop a system. Keep it simple. Don't let it get out of hand. 2. The first step in designing an evaluation system is to select evaluation criteria. In part this anticipates what others are going to want and in part it is built on what you need. Start with the project design document and note what it has on the subject. The Logical Framework can be made into an excellent evaluation tool. Finally, review the contract. These will give you a good idea of what the donor intends. From these synthesize a list of criteria. Match them against your own ideas, based on observation and experienced against the interests and ideas of the host institution. As you gain experience, review the match among these interests. From this draw up a list of evaluation criteria that will serve your purposes specifically and will be consistent with donor expectations. The more you can work with the host institution the more fruitful will be your efforts. Be sure your list is consistent with your objectives. 3. The second step is to develop measures that will reflect the criteria. You need measures that can be used well before any impacts of the project are likely. Early in the project these will be related more to input management than to output. As time goes on, more attention can be given to outputs. With inputs, however, there is a type of interim output. Selection and processing of participants is an interim or intermediate output of an input of expatriate technical assistance and resources Results of the first year's research is an intermediate output, be it the characterization of a type of farming area, results of research, or the start of area-specific research in a new area. These intermediate or interim measures are tricky. They can easily fall into measures of input, and little more. There will be some value in measures of input, but you can go farther without violating the criteria of simplicity. One means of going farther is to conceptualize the task or tasks you face, to translate the conceptualization into activities, and to put them on an activity chart. Progress through the activity chart will produce significant interim outputs. If they don't seem significant, then the activity chart needs to be revised. This indicates the relationship among planning, objective setting, and evaluation. 4. You will need a means of gathering information on the measures you have developed. Information should be that which the team itself can provide, and by activities that are closely related to the regular team duties. For example, if you can use information that a team member needs to record as part of his work, you gain efficiency and increase the chance that your system will indeed be implemented. V-10



PAGE 1

product market and the input market. Finally, the consumer is a client, but it is sometimes difficult (a) to trace impact on clients back to research and extension performance and (b) to make the case. Even with client satisfaction, there are other transactions. Those client satisfactions have to be mobilized and transmitted through the political-administrative process to the critical actors. At the end, the legislature and the administration have to provide resources. However, we do not know the forces between (a) client satisfaction and (b) favorable action of the authorized bodies. Succesful research and extension management and institution building must solve the riddle and learn to manage the process. Here are some ideas. Assign one person, full time, to the task of raising funds. Develop a financing strategy. Be sensitive to the need for impact on the economy and visibility. This should lead to consider what the organization has now of value to the economy and means to deliver it. Keep track of all services and contributions to the economy, large and small. Attempt some economic analysis of them, both up to now and.projected into the future. Aim to create the image that research-extension funding is an investment, not a cost. Describe the process by which funds are allocated, and identify critical actors, specifically. Then, trace a path from your organization through the process to the critical actors. That path will include other organizations and people. Develop a plan to move along the path. It will have long term aspects as well as short term ones. Collaborate with other organizations whose fortunes are closely tied with yours. Research and Extension could plan and strategize together, for example, rather than independently of each other. Do not constrain yourself to seeking funds only from the government. Look to private industry, international foundations, international private agencies, and international donors. Donors may be a more important long run source of financing than has previously been thought. 1-2



PAGE 1

Appendix RInternational Technology Network No team or entity, even country, is selIf-sufficient in technology innovation. It must depend on others, either incountry or in another country, for certain inputs. National research and extension systems must be organized so that the referral-response function can be implemented effectively and efficiently. See Figure 1. Figure 1 shows the international resources to which needs can be referred. It also shows an organization of national entities (the national system) that is 'needed and feasible to link the farmer to the world's technology innovation resources through a series of referral-response relationships. With the proper national referral-response structure, national systems can become functional members of the international technology innovation-.network. They do not have to catch up, if they can catch on. There are some elements of the national system that are essential for an effective referral-response structure. Two of these are structural. 1. The national research entity must have an adaptive or on-farm research capacity and program. (This may be known as farming systems research.) This capacity is needed so that th research entity can understand the technological needs and alternatives of the nation's agriculture. 2. The national extension entity must have a capacity to deal with technology and technology innovation virtually on a par with the on-farm research personnel of research. It must also have a program that (a) links with research and (b) provides technical support to the field agents. These two functions are essential response and referral functions. The third essential element is (a) knowledge of the international science and technology resources available and (b) capacity for linking with them. This requires not only skill but a management system. The country needs to be able to manage its contacts with international entities so that national interests can be served. Without this system and skill, the national system can only re-act to initiatives from the external sources. This places they national interests completely in the hands of the external agencies who have no alternative but to serve their own interests. In some cases their interests and national interests will coincide, but in many cases external interests will be of only marginal value to national interests. On the other hand, it is perfectly feasible for the national system to take charge of these relations and more completely serve its own agriculture.



PAGE 1

G. Extra-Evaluation Agendas Occasionally you will encounter situations in which some of the parties involved will want to use your team and the evaluation to achieve an objective that is only marginally related to the purpose of an evaluation. Many of these extraevaluation agendas are legitimate, and you may be able to make a genuine contribution without compromising your own reponsibility. However, in some cases they are simply attempts to use you and your task for ends that have little relevance to your task and could be harmful to your job. You have to rely on your own judgment (1) in recognizing these agendas and (2) in deciding how to handle them. In some cases, even a legitimate request may be outside your responsibililty. For example, either the implementing agent or the donor, may want an evaluation of an implementing team member. This is clearly outside what one should expect from an evaluation. It may be completely legitimate, in which case you can decide what to do as an individual, outside the evaluation. However, such a request could be part of an ongoing personality conflict in which your contribution could do as much harm as good. In other cases conflicts between two persons result from fundamental differences in viewpoint on technical criteria, and the issue may have to be faced. Some guidelines may be useful. Only one evaluation report should probably be written. It can treat squarely and in a straightforward manner, many problems that appear delicate or sensitive if rapport has been established and if the issue is handled objectively and according to fairly specific criteria. If a separate report seems needed or has been requested, consider very carefully before writing it. Consider the alternative of an oral report--if the need and request is legitimate and seems needed. Let the requester, in a memo of conversation, write it down if he needs it written. In some cases the request is clearly more than can be expected of an evaluation team, and your best alternative is simply not to grant it. You may have experience or make observations that interest you as an individual and have value in another context. Handle these cases by your own criteria. They can be handled or responded to but outside the framework of the evaluation. In some cases ignorance is your best strategy. If you sense trouble on an issue not important to the evaluation task, the best alternative may be to ignore it and all the data presented to you. VI -6



PAGE 1

G. Don't Underestimate th-e: Potential It is common to evaluate a donor on the size of its financial input, or resource transfer. Financial input is indeed a measure, but it is not the only measure. The need for a steadily improving institutional capacity ranks at least equal to the need for capital and financial support in virtually every LDC. Improved institutional capacity cannot be bought with money alone. It needs direction, and it needs time. Neither of these are costly in terms of dollars, and neither is a ready made item for sale on the market. Donors have shown a remarkable persistence in their inability to coordinate efforts, especially in research and extension.* Yet some degree of coordination is essential if the same understaffed and underfinanced research or extension institution has to deal with many donors. It may well be that the best chance of achieving donor coordination will be to help the research and extension institutions to develop their capacities to the point at which they can effect the coordination of donor efforts and establish their direction. This is a completely feasible objective for the donor who has the will and the persistence and access to a certain level of technical competency which can be offered the Host Institution. It does not require a large capital input. H. inkgeR/Eand ITN This summarizes some of the material discussed above. Inadequate research-extension linkage has been one of the most persistent of problems. The technology innovation process provides a possible explanation. Research has operated at the left end of the model and extension at the right, leaving the center inadequately attended. FSR/E has moved in to fill that gap, and in doing so may provide the key to improving linkage. If it is the key, both research and extension must be involved for the potential to be realized. That involvement can be greatly facilitated if donors will develop projects with both entities instead of just one. Another linkage that needs specific attention is that with the International Technology Network (ITN), which is the store house for the world's agricultural technology and scientific knowledge. Most countries are relatively passive in dealing with the ITN, either taking what is offered or not. Few have an active program to search the ITN systemmatically for technology and knowledge it needs or could use with great profit. Such a program needs to be developed for many LDC's, and it will cost considerably less than the investment needed to generate technology. Such importation will not be a stopgap for most countries. It will be a standard arrangement. 111-8



PAGE 1

ORIENTATION OF TITLE XII UNIVERSITY CONTRACT FOR AID OVERSEAS ASSIGNMENT An orientation program should give consideration to the following: 1. Pre-assigrmient counseling Content: Individual contractual relationship with the Title XII institution, status with the institution during the overseas assignments, communications and administrative linkages, individual expectations and problems, etc. Method: -Campus Orientation officer and individual contractor 2. Pre-departure checklist Content: Passports, visas, immunization requirements, travel arrangements, weight allowances, shipment of household effects, insurance, wills, settling personal affairs, helpful hints, etc. Method: -Individual study -Questions to be answered by Campus Orientation Officer and/or AID/W -M/PM/TD/OT 3. Living Conditions at Post Content: Health, housing, food, climate, recreation, schooling, etc. Method: -Information to be gathered and provided to individual technician and Campus Orientation Officer by AID-M/PMiID/OT -Additional information from other faculty members with experience in the host country -Initial briefing by USAID upon arrival at post 4. Working Conditions at Post Content: Location of project office facilities, official transportation, host country institution, host country counterparts, lines of F-3



PAGE 1

As with testing, integration is essential. The farmer must do it. If he has to do it without research and extension help, it will be inefficient and slow. b. A second dimension is integration with the market, both input and product. Much agricultural technology is embodied in a commodity. If that commodity is not available and cannot be made available, a new technology cannot be adapted, no matter what its merit. Integration involves market action to make inputs available or research-extension activity adapted to the lack of input. -On the product side, if there is inadequate market, farmers cannot integrate the technology into their systems of production. c. The third dimension is integration with national policies. National policy often works through product and input markets and sets conditions the farmer must adapt to. These conditions affect the ways he can deal with new technology. If policies are not adequate and cannot be changed, the conditions they create must be adapted to. 7. Technology Dissemination involves informing farmers of the new technology and helping them figure out how to fit it into their systems of farming. For simple technology, informing is all that is needed, and farmers themselves can fit it into their systems. Disemination means "1to seed," and for simple technology, seedingn" is all that is needed. The extensiondemonstration is one of the most effective seeding devices. It may not beas much a "demonstrating" as it' is a means by which the farmer' s own experimental process is facilitated. Most farmers are both experimental and skeptical. They will not adopt a practice until they have either experimented with it in their own system or have seen it perform in a system almost like theirs. The demonstration facilitates this process and is literally an "on-farm trial."' As technology becomes more complex, more assistance is needed from extension to help farmers fit it into their systems. 8. Diffusion and adoption are largely a function of the farmer dynamic. Farmers themselves, through their kinship groups and other social systems, constitute a powerful force, working either to facilitate or to impede diffusion. This farmer dynamic has been responsible for much diffusion throughout history, unaided by research and extension. Extension is most effective when it takes advantage of and encourages the farmer dynamic. Diffusion and dissemination are distinguished here to reflect the distinction between outside forces and the farmers' own force in the diffusion function of the process. A-3



PAGE 1

working draft #3 This role is called backstopping or support. It is frequently missing or very poorly done. Obviously, technical support personnel must either have transportation or be located close to both knowledge sources and field personnel. One excellent way to train agents is for the technical specialist to function as guest lecturer with an agent's farmers. This helps insure transference and provides security to the agent as he or she hears the questions answered that will be involved with follow-up. If field visits together are not possible this guest lecturer approach will be very useful in augmenting training workshops. Helping the agent with field demonstrations is also both excellent training and a major step in insuring the practical knowledge of field staff. In other words, the training role of the TL&S personnel does not end with a formal workshop regarding new technology. Instead it just begins. 6. Use mass media and other aids in support of field programs. Some extension services do not have mass media or the cpability to provide visual aids to agents in the field. But where they exist, they should be planned and used together as a part of the dissemination system in parallel and not as separates. How to put out demonstrations or answers to typical questions about a given technology or problem are examples of support materils of high priority that specialists might provide. Visuals to help people understand by seeing as well as hearing are important too, especially where part of the clientele are illiterate or poorly prepared. 7. Determining progress and identifying new problem must be a concern of all TL&S staff. Efforts to determine these things may be extension wide or even performed together with research colleagues. But TL&S personnel should press for such work and gather the information as best theycan within their own sphere of operations. Being able to form good judgments of these matters is essential to developing an effective plan of work for the next season and in helping guide research and field testing. 8. TL&S personnel must clearly not be administrative personnel, as they must be viewed as friends and helpers of the agents. Yet, administrative personnel must be able to ask them for appropriate help, such as providing support for specific personnel. It is essential that TL&S personnel report the results of such work to administration as well as providing early warning to administrators about problem that appear to be emerging (e.g. the build up of insects or diseases). Hence TL&S personnel should report conditions and problems to administration but should not be responsible for personnel actions. 9. Finally, make investments in keeping extension TL&S personnel up to date. A good principle is to employ only as many field'/staff as you can keep trained and supported. 10. Keep in mind that the role of the TL&S staff is to enhance the use of agricultural information to solve problems and to support development, with special but not exclusive reference to extension./ Input suppliers and others who contact farmers are important clients of research and extension. They need to know what is being recommended to farmers so D-15



PAGE 1

The book may be said to "condition,' rather than instruct, the evaluator. For example, he indicates the problems of communication, especially between two persons from widely different backgrounds. He doesn't provide a formula for solving the problem, but he does state rather simply that the burden of communication is on the evaluator. He has a useful treatment of two instruments of value not only in evaluation but in management in general. One of these is the flow chart, or activity chart, which, he claims requires careful thinking. The other is the matrix, involving what he calls "quadrant thinking." With both of these he provides examples that improve their utility. The team or group being evaluated will appreciate a section he has on defense against the incompetent evaluator. This section also provides insights on how your evaluation can be rendered ineffective. This is a useful book to carry along. It is interesting and useful reading on the airplane ride to the country, and it will be a handy reference on a few key points during the evaluation. Resource Allocation and Productivity in National and International Agricultural.Research Arndt, Thomas, and Dana Dalrymple and Vernon Ruttan: University of Minnesota Press; 1977 This book reports the proceedings of a conference held in 1975 at Airlee House in Virginia. It brings together an excellent combination of case studies, scholarly research, and expert judgment covering various aspects of research. It gives considerable attention to the returns from investment in research, both national research and research in the international agricultural research centers. It also emphasizes the need for national investment and capacity in order to take advantage of gains made in the international centers. The book is organized into six sections, each containing three to six chapters written by different authors. The sections are Productivity of National Research Systems, Productivity of International Research Systems, Organization and Development of the International Institute System, Organization and Management of Agricultural Research Systems, Economic and Social Factors in Research Resource Allocation, and Future of the International Research System. AL-3



PAGE 1

working draft #3 Research and extension organizations are a part of a country's mechanisms for achieving improved productions as a basis for agriculture development. Each must function well to justify public support. Gaps or lack of functional support between extension and research will become increasingly intolerable in the years ahead. Extension services frequently take a constant flow of technology into the system for granted. A checklist of selected frequently forgotten aspects of setting up a TL&S staff in extension follows: A Checklist of Important Considerations in Setting up or Operating a TL&S Group 1. Develop an inr-depth understanding with knowledge sources, starting at the top. Don't take it for granted. Memoranda of understanding between extension and major knowledge sources enhance the relationship and provide greater continuity. Many good ideas do not pay off because the supporting steps were not taken. Somie elements of an agreement might be: Overall Extension and research will provide mutual support as a priority part of their job. Facilitating research should be a part of each extension worker' s job and facilitating dissemination a part of each researcher' s role. Things that Extension might agree to do: a. Provide information to researchers about problem that are encountered in the field, with a meeting between appropriate people in the organization no less than once a year (along with frequent personal contact) to discuss mutual concern and provide assistance in making needed surveys. b. Facilitate research personnel contact with farmers to see problem first hand and to discuss need with farmers. c. Help identify and make contacts -with farmers needed in facilitating research activities and field testing technology. d. Make personnel available to assist with the day to day supervision of field tests and demonstrtions. e. Maintain a corps of technical liaison personnel which will have a major ass igrnent in facilitting the above functions and enhancing the transfer of information to extension for dissemination. And organize and house then to enhance the performance of these activities. f. Assign extension personnel as appropriate to wrkgroups; or task forces of research personnel such as Farming Systems Research groups, who have extension related functions to perform and which have regular need for farmer contact. 013



PAGE 1

The collection of articles is particularly useful in understanding the research process and what it takes to make the process productive. It would be a great help to donors in developing projects and in commmunicating with host governments on research development strategy. Several of the national case studies have important lessons for most donor clients. --0AL-4



PAGE 1

IEEFI RANSACi IONS ON I..N;iNII.ItIN(G MANAGI.MEN I. N(VI;MtI 1971 for clearly and iealistiCally portraying project plans and other networkshence, it retains Its usefulness as a c0lniiulipromote innovative approaches to project planning. The cition and exploialion device as it grows in size. clarity provided to a project plan when portrayed by a DELTA 3) The loops that normally occur on such charts, when chart is attained through precise definition of responsibility planning R&D projects, help technical people convince manfor activities and decisions, clear representation of alternative agers that a rigid time schedule for a whole project is often approaches, an easy to understand symbology, and a precise impractical. This allows for more realistic approaches to the syntax for event and activity description, scheduling of parts of a project that can be closely scheduled. The ability to use timeand cost-analysis techniques and. and permits the introduction of contingencies very early in the computer programs developed previously for PERT and GERT planning to help avoid excessive lock-in. reduces the amount of learning required to implement DELTA 4) Because people are not forced by this approach into an chart techniques. For small projects, DELTA charts provide a artificial situation, it is more intellectually acceptable; hence, clear graphical representation of the projects and can be easily capable technical people are more inclined to put time into its combined with Gantt or MOST charts for project managedevelopment. ment. 5) Careful adherence to the standards set forth for presentaWe believe the advantages of DELTA charts over previous tion greatly enhances the effectiveness of planning because the network methods are significant and will lead to wide acceptsemantic uncertainty commonly found on ad hoc charts is subance with consequent improved project planning and managestantially diminished. ment. 6) The size of a DELTA chart for a real-world project is much too large for conventional publication formats; hence, ACKNOWLEDGMENT publication of real-world applications in detail in journals with Many valuable suggestions were contributed by Dr. R. W. rigid size format is not practical. House, B. B. Gordon, and R. D. King of the Battelle Memorial 7) The value of the DELTA chart technique is appraised Institute staff. quite differently by different individuals. Some of the factors that affect such appraisals are whether the individual has ever had to plan a large project, whether the individual is locked in POSTSCRIPT to a more familiar method, whether the individual is willing to Reviewers of this paper called attention to the lack of desaccept new tools that he did not invent, and whether or not cription of any applications that have been made of the the individual desires to employ an open-communication DELTA chart. They have suggested that comments on its apmode. No one can sell a method to someone else. The people plication be added to the paper. who use DELTA charts typically have been skeptical at first, pTie ahorsad omhe ofer cand have become convinced of their usefulness only after they The authors and some of their colleagues have been using DELTA charts for approximately three years. Among the have tried them in a situation where a plan is essential to the applications are the following, conduct of a significant effort of some magnitude. Planning an experiment to place a geodetic marker in the 8) Projects often embody risks concerning whether what is Pacific Ocean. This experiment involved five cooperating desired is attainable under the constraints of the laws of organizations and precise coordination between a ship, a plane, nature, risks concerning what is within the technical state of and electronic equipment operating on the ship, the plane, and the art, risks associated with manageability of large projects, the California coast. The experiment was successful, risks associated with timely availability of future budget alloPlanning for a new microwave landing system. The large cations, and risks associated with human behavior. Our experiDELTA chart prepared to show the interrelation of various ence indicates that the greater these risks, the more useful is the DELTA chart technique and the lower the risks, the less activities, events, and decisions in a multiple-organization the TA cho ice and app r taken. multiple-agency program has helped to lay a good basis for a significant the choice of planning approach taken. national effort to develop such a system. 9) Perhaps the greatest advantage of the DELTA chart is Portraying a management plan for a portion of the large that it provides an individual with a means to portray effecincentive-performance-contracting experiment now going on in tively and clearly a very complex network of sequenced intera sample of the nation's schools. The DELTA chart is assisting actions in such a way that it can be comprehended by other in financial estimating and timely conduct of the many activpeople. ities that make up one portion of this large experiment. Many organizations, agencies, and individuals are involved. REFERENCES The following comments are based on these and other Ill If. A. Wootdgate, Planning by Network. New York: Branexperiences with DELTA charts, don/Systens Press. 1964. 1) The DELTA chart is especially valuable when several 121 II. Eisner, "A generalized network approach to the planiing and scheduling of a research project." J. Opcr. Res. Soc. Amer.. vol. organizations are expected to be involved in the program being 10, no. 1, 1962. pp. t t5 -125. because it furnishes a means whereby these 131 S. A. Elnaghraby. "An algebra for the analysis of generalized planned borganiza activity network," 3fanag. Sti.. vol. t0.. 1Q64, pp. 494 -S14. tions can see how they must function together in order to 141 A. A. B. Pritsker and W. W. liapp. "GERT: Graphical evaluation achieve overall goals. and review technique, part I, fundamentals." A. hId. Eng., voL 17, acheveoveallgoas.May 196, pp. 26 227 4. 2) The clarity of presentation is much higher than that of 151 -."GRT: Graphical evaluation and review technique, part 2. G7



PAGE 1

OPERATIONAL SUMMARY Purpose of this section is to summarize in short, direct assertions the guidelines that have been stated and explained in the Handbook. It follows the handbook directly, and by referring to the table of contents you can find the more detailed treatment. I. Introduction A. The handbook is a synthesis of experience. B. It is intended for all of the personnel involved in the life of a donor project. C. The donor process from project development to evaluation is described. D. The handbook is organized around the typical process. E. FSR/E is considered vital to the conventional R/E process and is defined broadly. F. The "farming system" is also defined broadly. G. Emphasis is placed on models to help with communication. H. Panel which reviewed working draft #2 is listed. Chapter II. Operational Principles A. FSR/E deals with technology from farmer's viewpoint. B. Farmer involvement is essential to FSR/E. C. FSR/E is a problem-solving approach. D. FSR/E is essential to the technology innovation process. E. Research and extension systems make up only one component of the institutional structure, called the Macro-Environment, needed for agricultural development. F. Technical assistance in FSR/E needs to be oriented to institution building, not just the success of a project. OS-i



PAGE 1

TABLE VII BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS USING ALTERNATIVE ASSUMPTION I (in constant US. $) Year Annual Cost of DPV of Benefit Stream DPV of Project Project Benefits costs (thousand US$) 1 890.5 890.5 2 1,285.3 1,147.8 0.33 x .30 x 3 1,392.7 1,110.0 0.50 x .40 x 4 1,257.1 895.1 0.67 x .48 x 5 1,249.2 794.5 x .64 x 6 187.1 106.1 x .57 x 7 187.1 94.9 x .51 x 8 187.1 84.6 x .45 x 9 187.1 75.6 x .40 x 10 187.1 67.5 x .36 x 11 187.1 60.2 x .32 x 12 187.1 53.7 x .29 x 13 187.1 48.1 x .26 x 14 187.1 42.8 x .23 x 15 187.1 38.4 x .18 x 16 187.1 34.2 x .16 x 17 187.1 30.5 x .15 x 18 187.1 27.3. x .13 x 19 187.1 24.3 x .12 x 20 187.1 21.7 5,647.8 6.16 x B -=1=6.16 x C5647.8 x = 5647.8 -916.9 6.16 B-8



PAGE 1

The "system" assumed most frequently in this book is the agricultural production system, but the approaches assumed will accomodate other systems as varied as the farm household and the world market. Part of "understanding the relevant farming system" is understanding how the other systems influence it. Likewise, the concept of "farm" is not restrictive. It can be a simple family owned and operated farm, a tenant farm, a farm with several households, a farm that depends on private plots and communal lands, even a plantation. No matter what the "system of farming," it is necessary that research and extension workers understand it. G. Emphasis on Models Great emphasis is placed on models throughout this book. A model has two purposes. It helps to think through a problem or process, and it greatly facilitates communication among all the many actors from varied backgrounds who-.are involved in technology innovation and in donor projects that support it. Technology innovation is a social process, not readily observable, and not well understood. Organizing and managing agencies to achieve innovation is even less so. Each of the many actors and groups of actors involved will have her/his own concepts based on experiences. A model helps to achieve some commonality of concepts. This book makes heavy use of the Technology Innovation Process model and derivations of it. It serves to provide a common starting place for the many actors. It has been used and. modified to fit particular needs and situations. Use of the TIP model does not -indicate any particular defense for it as much as it does encourage the use of models. If you do modify the TIP or develop your own model that proves useful, please share it with the FSSP. H. Review Panel Experiences that fed into this draft came from too many sources to acknowledge. Working Draft #2 was formally reviewed in a workshop in January 1985. No approval was requested from the workshop participants, and the 're is no implication that this draft was formally approved. Many review notes and comments have entered this draft. However, all responsibility for synthesizing the range of experience rests with FSSP. Participants in the January 1985 workshop were: Jay Artis, Michigan State University; Earl Kellogg and J. B. Claar, University of Illinois; Robert Tripp, CIMMYT; Robert Hart, Winrock International; Richard Harwood, IADS; Donald Voth, University of Arkansas; Eugenio Martinez and Loy Crowder, Rockefeller Foundation/University of Florida; Robert Waugh and James Meiman, Colorado State University; and Dan Galt, Jim Jones, Ken McDermott, Susan Poats, and Chris Andrew of the Farming System Support Project. 1-4



PAGE 1

9. You have more time in selecting replacements. Use it. To the extent feasible, send prospective candidates on short term duty to the project. D. Team Orientation, General Until a person has lived or worked in a country it is difficult for her/him to appreciate much of what you can give in an orientation. Even though its effectiveness is limited, orientation does have value, and the value is critical. Think in orienting original team and replacements. For replacements you will have much more information than you had for original team. The project will soon seem commonplace to you, but it's not'to the new team member. Don't slight the replacement personnel and families. 1. Recognize importance of family, who does not have the support that the team members' professional responsibilities and activities provide. 2. Describe the country,. location with respect to other countries, geography, climate, life style, culture, economic situation, politics and history, and matters of specific relevance to project and team. Provide a map. 3. Build a small library team members can use in their own preparation. Useful materials are project documents, other donor prepared documents, your proposal, the contract, along with other information you can accumulate that would be helpful. 4. Provide both information and discussion opportunity for families on living conditions. Health and education opportunities are often of most concern. Develop as much information as you can on international communication and transportation facilities; contractor perquisites, such as access to donor facilities--health nurse, diplomatic mail, commissary, furniture; shopping facilities--locally, in-country, nearby, and by mail order--including team members' importation privileges and restrictions; recreation facilities and tourist possibilities; opportunities for family member activities; opportunities for family members to work, either as professionals or volunteers. 5. Provide an orientation kit for each family--with map of country and capital city, important phone numbers and addresses, churches, donor privileges available and rules for accessing them, international communications facilities (airlines, telex, and cable numbers), ways to contact team and family members in an emergency. Provide information that is critical, vital, or highly useful, keeping the kit as neat and maneageble as you can. 6. Discuss, to the extent you can determine it yourself, the "cultural positioning" of the team and family members. Perhaps all you can do is to stimulate an awareness and encourage your personnel to be sensitive to certain issues. These will vary V-3



PAGE 1

studies of value to you. Very often it will have personnel familiar with the country and project situation. Finally, there will be contractors of earlier projects who can help. Briefing Aim for a briefing before the team leaves the country. The briefing should accomplish three ends. One is to get a stateside donor view of the project along with information and analysis on the country and the donor's interest and strategy. This helps you put your project and your task in context. You will also want a mission briefing. The second purpose to accomplish is to review some technical considerations relevant to the task. You can use this handbook, which attempts to make available to you much of the experience of others on the same assignment. Finally, start as soon as you can the task of team building, i.e. consensus in the team, agreement on the task, and the specific responsibilities of each. You will likely only get it started at this point. Team Leader Visit Perhaps the most use preparatory activity is seldom' done under the press of time. That is to start the design activity. several months before the team is due to arrive in country. Two actions have proven helpful. One is to appoint the team leader early and let him have 'a hand in selecting the rest of the team. It is important for the members to be ahle to work together, just as important as being individually well qualified. The second useful action is to arrange a country visit for the team leader to help structure and prepare the task before the team arrives. The team leader could be responsible for much of the briefing with such a visit. These two actions require resources and time. The time can be provided by more advanced planning. The resources can be justified on two counts. The product will be greatly improved, perhaps more than enough to jus.tif*y the cost. There is almost always some need for analysis and data gathering ahead of the team's arrival. This could pay for'the trip. 3.. In-Country Donor Contact + Arrange for a team briefing soon after you arrive in country to determine: Donor program and strategy; what is wanted in the project; more information and understanding of the IV-20



PAGE 1

D. Organizational Design Considerations IV-12 Organization Alternatives--Area-specific Research, Subject Matter Research, Relating Subject Matter and Area-specific Research (Matrix), Technical Liaison and Support, E. Evaluation Considerations IV-16 Suggested Plan and System, Objectives in Evaluation F. Paper Preparation IV-19. Project Paper Outline--Abstract, Background, Description, Analyses (Technical, Economic, Social, Administrative), Financial-Plan, Implementation Plan, Evaluation Plan CHAPTER V: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION A. Introduction V-i B. Pre-Implementation Management V-2 C. Team Member Selection V-2 D. Team Orientation, General V-3 Family, Country, Library, Living Conditions, Orientation Kit, Cultural Positioning, Security E. Team Orientation, Professional V-4 Project Purpose, Overseas Operations, Team. Identity, Key Actors, Political Awareness, Host Institution Reward Structure, Keep to the Task, Communications, Related Projects F. Backstop Structure and Administration V-5 Key Actors, Management System, Administrative Procedures, Routines; Special Problems G. Project Start-Up V-6 Calendar, Review Design, Host Institution Relationships, Gaining Acceptance, Early Impact, Team Deployment, Project Visibility, H. Objectives in Team and Task Management V-8 I. Managing Evaluation V-9 Take Charge, Evaluation System, Select Measures, Information Gathering, Image J. Managing New Components V-12 Be Useful, Take Advantage of Momentum, Get Close to Production K. Going the Extra Mile V-12 L. Host Institution Management V-13 Strategic Planning, Resource Acquisition, Research-Extension Linkage CHAPTER VI: PROJECT EVALUATION A. Introduction VI-1 B. Preparation for the Task VI-2 Paper Trail, Briefing, C. Evaluation Strategy VI-3 TC -2



PAGE 1

It is not possible to deal with everything at once, and one can be effective in dealing with research, extension, or both. However, from the concept of institutions, we can derive some conditions that must be achieved so that "institution building" dealing with "organizations" will eventually result in an impact on individual action or behavior of such nature and on such scale that these organizations will indeed have an "institutional" nature. Four conditions are identified, as follows. 1. The organization itself must be effective, i.e. it must be able to serve the purpose assigned to it, or expected of it. If it does serve that purpose effectively, a base is created for it to be "valued by Society." 2. Its program must not only be effective, but it also must operate on a significant scale. If its program affects only a small number of individuals, it cannot be said to "in control of individual action," nor can it be regarded as a "rule" of the Society, and thus it gives no cause to be "valued by the Society." 3. The organization must have enough stability of program so that (a) program impacts can accumulate and (b) its own personnel can accumulate wisdom and skill. 4. It must endure or persist so that direct clients and others can depend on it and make long run investments on the "security of expectation" that its program and services will continue. It is clear that a single donor project may well not stay with an organization long enough for it to achieve what may be called "institutional status." However, these four criteria of institutionalization present all project personnel with clear guidelines as to what is needed. It is difficult to detect, let alone measure, progress toward these criteria. A project could be effective according to these criteria but not appear to be a "good" project. On the other hand, a project could be ineffective but seek shelter behind the "institution-building-takes-a-long-time" shield. The. long run nature of institution building is not a justification for avoiding the pressure for short run production impact. Analytical Variables Institutional analysts deal with two sets of variables. One they call institutional variables, the other, linkage variables. A. Institutional Variables This is a checklist, calling attention to critical variables. It does not supply the criteria for analysis. That must be provided from a knowledge of institutional needs. E-2



PAGE 1

5. The final element is the ability to transmit information and understanding among units of research and extension entities. Because they serve farmers, units and personnel of research and extension are dispersed over wide areas, and communication is not simple, even within each of the entities. Research and extension communication is seldom even near to adequate. Several of these functions will be recognized as central to FSR/E, and this indicates its role in the technology innovation process. Much technology can be imported. Yet without this basic capacity, a country cannot take advantage of the technology available. F. International Technology Transfer Hyami and Ruttan in Agricultural Development: An International Perspective present a model of international technology transfer and an analysis useful in RIE project development. The model was developed from historical studies and is supported with empirical data. The model recognizes three stages of technology transfer among nations. 1. Materials transfer is the simplest. Technology is often embodied in a commodity--seed, machine, or chemical. The simplest form of transfer is transfer of the commodity embodying technology. It often happens through exploration, warfare, and trade. Materials transfer requires little national capacity. 2. Design transfer requires national capacity. It involves the capacity to produce materials involved in the earlier stage. Blueprints for factories and designs of tractors can be imported, often with technical assistance. Seed can be produced, and certain technologies copied. A production capacity as well as technological capacity is required. A country often moves into this stage as it begins to develop its national capacity in research and extension. 3. Technology capacity transfer is the most complex and most difficult. This is a transfer of ability to generate new technology. It takes more than excellent training in a foreign country, according to their historical analysis of several countries, including the United States. It often requires that scientists be imported to work with well-trained national staff over extended periods. The value of these models is to help donors and host countries determine the level of technology transfer that is relevant, so that expectations of probable performance can be realistic. Some of the most serious mistakes are those arising out of unrealistic expectations. 111-7



PAGE 1

Fig. IV-la. Activity Assignments between Research and Extension, By Functions of the Technology Innovation Process Technology Innovation Process World Tech Stock Science Tech Tech Tech Tech Tech Dfusn Knoldg Genratn Testng Adapttn Ntgratn Dsmnatn Adoptn I I I %R \ X \ Area-Specific / E Subject Matter \ Research / / f Research \ / Technical/ f \ / Liaison & / Field o / Support Extension r / tE / / T Units to which Assigned Fig. III-lb. Activity Assignments between Research and Extension, By Functions of the Technology Innovation Process. Technology Innovation Process Stock Science Tech Tech Tech Tech Tech Dfusn Knoldq Research Genratn Testng Adapttn Ntgratn Dsmnatn Adoptn a R I I aR X c t i V i t yE T Unit Receiving Assignment IV4



PAGE 1

Project Paper Outline 1. Project Paper Abstract One page. Include costs, TA input, training output, commodities, construction, host country input, changes intended to be accomplished. 2. Background a. Characterize host country agriculture and explain its importance in the economy. (World Bank reports are useful.) b. Describe the current status of agricultural research and extension, showing organization (with diagrams), reporting budget and personnel, important current R/E policies, and objectives of this project. This needs to be an analytical task as well as simply description. (See Appendix B.) 3. Project Description a. Summary of Goal, Purpose, and Outputs from Log Frame b. Project Activities Use inputs from Log Frame (See Appendix C), describe types of TA needed, prepare job descriptions, explain short-term consultant needs, describe training, list commodities, and explain course of action (strategy or plan) Show plainly how the components relate to each other. 4. Project analyses a.Technical Analysis Show and explain why you have chosen this course of action or project strategy and why it is expected to work. This may have been done as the donor selected this alternative. Avoid cliches that have little or no meaning to generalists who have no special knowledge or appreciation of research or estension. b. Economic Analysis It is difficult to make this analysis. You have to assume too much with regard to results to be very convincing, if you present an analysis. It is more useful to use another approach. Data are available to show that research provides higher returns on IV-24



PAGE 1

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. EM-18, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 1971 The DELTA Chart: (Aftendix G) A Method for R&D Project Portrayal JOHN N. WARFIELD AND J. D. HIfLL Abstract-Flow charts and network methods are vital tools used to happening in the shop [8]. Thus, what started out as a benefacilitate clear concise planning and scheduling of large projects. The ficial planning tool becomes a drag on operations. Some enthulimited flexibility and vocabulary of existing tools do not allow -th siasts have been inclined to require that data be obtained for flexibility required for planning and depicting research and development (R&D) projects. DELTA charts described in thi pae have bee management use of networks that may not be obtainable at designed to incorporate not only events and activities but also decision all, may be obtainable only after the program in progress is and logic functions that enable representation of alternative approaches finished, or may be obsolete by the time it has been collected. and feedback paths, both of which are, essential in R&D project One concludes that too much emphasis often has been placed plaDELTAg. on the use of network methods to control programs and too A precise syntax for te DLAcatcomponent is deied little on their use as a communication tool and stimulus to order to make them capable of presenting a clear precise picture that is self-explanatory to a wide audience, creative thinking. Two examples of DELTA charts are presented, the first of which is Flow charts, other than those developed to depict the flow a DELTA chart that indicates the procedure for making a DELTA of computer programs and defined by ASA Standard [61, have chart. not been formalized. The DELTA chart has been formalized in order to permit its use to be teachable and to assure that its INTRODUCTION elements will be clearly understood by a variety of potential users. TN R 'ECENT years, there has been an increasing interest in DELTA charts have been designed to incorporate not only the use of flow charts and network methods for planning, events and activities but also decision and logic functions that and scheduling large projects and computer operations, allow the flexibility of planning for alternative approaches and [1].-[71 This interest is occasioned by the need to plan and for feedback paths, both of which are essential in R&D project manage large expensive programs whether carried out by planning. In addition, the actors responsible for all activities people or by computer or by both. While some of these tools and decisions are clearly specified on DELTA charts. have been extremely helpful, there are instances where their Because PERT does not conveniently allow for alternatives, use has been dysfunctional. None of the available methods 'decisions, and logic, it has promoted both within government seems highly suitable for certain kinds of planning efforts. Be. and industry a tendency to plan for only a single most likely cause of this, a new type of chart called a DELTA chart has approach to R&D projects. Promising alternatives are often been developed, not considered because PERT does not induce consideration The DELTA chart is a form of flow chart. It was developed of alternatives, but rather tends to constrain thinking to a to satisfy a need for an improved method for depicting a single narrow path. Moreover, the lack of clearly defined planned flow of activities in research and development projdecision points with assigned responsibility has promoted the ects. Typical network methods such as PERT [11, while adetendency to require total package bidding that places a very quate for depicting and controlling a deterministic sequence of large premium on clairvoyance. well-defined activities, do not conveniently allow the flexiThe use of DELTA charts in project planning clearly illusbility required for planning and depicting research and devel. trates the decision points and can stimulate more meaningful opment (R&D) projects. Moreover, the limited vocabulary of bidding practices. There are many reasons to plan a total proPERT tends to constrain thinking when planning projects. gram. However, the credibility of forecasts or projections falls Other network methods, eg., GERT networks, suffer from a off rapidly as one moves well into the future. Hence, a confusing symbology, as well as limited vocabulary, decision point on a DELTA chart, from which emanate alternMoreover, many of the network methods suffer from what ative paths with significantly different anticipated costs, is a might be called the "aging parasite" effect. As the program logical point to define an R&D phase milestone. Such mileevolves, the network tends to become progressively more stones deserve'to be considered carefully in bidding and fund. obsolete, whereupon program efforts are drained from the ing practices. technical areas into areas of paperwork designed to bring the' DELTA charts were developed especially to help in 'management tool" back in alignment with what is actually planning, portraying, and controlling R&D projects. Consequently, considerable attention has been given to making them Manucrit rceied Agus 17 190; rvisd My 171.versatile and capable of presenting a clear precise project The authors are with the Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus picture that is self-explanatory to a wide audience. Hopefully, Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio. the DELTA chart representation will motivate innovative and @1971 IEEE. Reprinted with permission from IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, Vol. EM-8. No. 4, November G 1 1971



PAGE 1

CHAPTER V The Implementation of Research and Extension Projects A. Introduction Principal audience for this chapter is the contractor who hasassumed responsibility to implement a technical assistance project in research and extension. There may be parts of it useful to the host institution, and it may have some value in helping-the donor understand the needs and orientation of the contractor. This chapter places more emphasis project relative to the host institution than do other chapters. The project is a critical management entity operating in an unusual environment and has important managements needs. No matter how closely the project field team identifies with the host institution or how it is deployed, the team is a unit and has needs of its own separate from any other entity. Thus, emphasis on the team is justified. However, the central orientation of this handbook, namely the interest of the host institution, still holds. The team has no, reason for being separate from the interests of the host' institution. Even though the project is the focus of this chapter, the guidelines are intended to help-project management serve the interests of the host institution, and some of the guidelines may be useful to host institution management,. Two management entities are involved. The project includes the field team and the contractor backstop. It sometimes is easy to take the backstopping and administrative activities of the contractor for granted. However,,each project faces the contractor with a new situation, and much of its previous experience is not fully useful. As part of the project, the field team is a discrete management entity, under conditions not fully appreciated by backstop personnel and with team member interaction such that the backstop group is sometimes the "they" in a "we-they" relationship. In spite of the project orientation of this chapter, one of the marks of a good project is that it goes beyond the, requirements of the contract in assistance and support/to the host institution. There will be guidelines on going the extra mile. i .(See Appendix F for guidelines for team pre-departure preparation.) (Also refer to Team Leader Manual. See AL-l.) V-1



PAGE 1

Table B-i. Summary of Direct Cost-Benefit Type Studies of Agricultural Research Productivity Annual Study Country Subject Period Internal and Year Studied Rate of Study Return Griliches USA Hybrid maize 1940-55 35-40 (1958) Griliches USA Hybrid sorghum 1940-57 20 (1958) Peterson USA Poultry 1915-60 21-25 (1966) Evenson South Africa Sugarcane 1945-62 40 (1969) Ardito Barletta Mexico Wheat 1943-63 90 (1970) Ardito Barletta Mexico Maize 1943-63 35 (1970) Ayer Brazil Cotton 1924-67 77+ (1970) Schmitz & Seckler USA Tomato harvester 1958-69 (1970). With no compensation to displaced workers 37-46 Assuming compensation for 50% earnings loss 16-28 Hines Peru Maize 1954-67 (1972) Returns to maize research only 35-40 Research plus cultivation package 50-5.5 Hayami & Akino Japan Rice .1915-50 25-27 (1975) Japan Rice 1930-61 73-75 Hertford, Ardila Rocha & Trujillo Colombia Rice 1957-72 60-82 (1975) Colombia Soybeans 1960-71 79-96 Colombia Wheat 1953-73 11-12 Colombia Cotton 1953-72 none Peterson & Fitzharris USA Aggregate 1937-42 50 (1975) 1947-52 51 1957-62 49 1967-72 34 Source: Arndt, Thomas, Dana Dalrymple, and Vernon Ruttan, Editors: Resource Allocation and Productivity in National and International Agricultural Research; University of Minnesota Press, 1975, p. 5. Studies made in 1975 are reported in this volume, and reports of the other studies are cited in detail. B-3