The purpose of this paper is to re-examine the role that benchmarking can play in rural and agricultural innovations. Although generally known as 'traditional sector', rural activities are far from static but rather driven by old and new challenges pleading for innovative responses. Despite the broad range of insights from the burgeoning literature on innovation systems during the last decade, most benchmarking thinking and practice still remains highly science-based and centred in promoting public R&D, especially in developing countries.
This brief report lays out ten theories of advocacy and policy change. These theories are intended to articulate the policy making process and identify causal connections supported by research to explain how and why a change may or may not occur. It further provides examples of the way in which advocates, funders, and evaluators can use these theories in their work.
The UNDP Capacity Assessment Methodology User‘s Guide gives UNDP and other development practitioners a detailed step-by-step guide to conducting a capacity assessment using the UNDP Capacity Assessment Methodology, which consists of the UNDP Capacity Assessment Framework, a three-step process and supporting tools.
This brief provides an overview of the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system of the CGIAR Research Program on Aquatic Agricultural Systems (AAS) and describes how the M&E system is designed to support the program to achieve its goals. The AAS program aims to improve the lives of 22 million people dependent upon aquatic agricultural systems by 2024 through research in development.
This set of guidance notes is designed to support practitioners and evaluators in conducting retrospective evaluations of a capacity development intervention or portfolio to assess and document results. Users will enhance their understanding of the capacity development process, of what works and what does not work in promoting change and to inform future programs. The standard M&E approach for assessing capacity development results has not been sufficient.
This synthesis report presents the outputs of the workshop organised by CTA at its headquarters in Wageningen, The Netherlands, 15-17 July 2008. The outputs are presented in two main parts, each corresponding to one of the workshop objectives, and ends with a section on the way forward as suggested by the workshop participants. It also includes a first attempt to come to a consolidated generic framework on AIS performance indicators, based on the outputs of the different working groups.
This report reviews the evidence of impact of capacity strengthening on agricultural research for development (AR4D) in developing countries. The study was commissioned by DFID as part of the documentation process of the project Strengthening Capacity for Agricultural Research for Development in Africa (SCARDA).
This report describes the concepts and methods used to evaluate a regional capacity development project in Latin America. The project under study aims to strengthen planning, monitoring, and evaluation in agricultural research organizations in the region. The report outlines the procedures employed in five evaluation studies and summarizes the results of each study. It then presents consolidated findings in response to three evaluation questions: What were the main contributions of the project to agricultural research management?
This facilitation guide was developed to support the training of scientists who are members of the CCAFS Working Group on impact pathways and M&E for results-based management. The group attended a highly participatory introductory training from 1-5th April 2014 in Segovia, Spain. The objectives of the workshop were: 1. To introduce working group members to outcome thinking; 2. To present elements of the CCAFS theory of change (TOC), impact pathway (IP) and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework; 3.
Many capacity development (CD) programs and processes aim at long‐term sustainable change, which depends on seeing many smaller changes in at times almost invisible fields (rules, incentives, behaviours, power, coordination etc.). Yet, most evaluation processes of CD tend to focus on short‐term outputs focused on clearly visible changes.