cpwf-bfp-mekong impact pathway and most significant change...

DRAFT Second Call Projects Inception and IP Workshop Report

Impact Pathways Workshop for Second Call Projects Report

30th April to 3rd May, 2008

Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand

Facilitators: Boru Douthwaite, Sophie Alvarez and Eva Rathgeber

Introduction

Rationale for the WorkshopThe CPWF (Challenge Program for Water and Food) needs a better appreciation of the existing and potential impact of research on water use in agriculture to justify current and future funding.

At the same time the CPWF Second Call projects can benefit from a better understanding of whose practices they need to influence to achieve their goals and the strategies to do so. This can be achieved through a gender-sensitive approach that identifies partners, networks and other actors in the project and analysis their anticipated inputs and the constraints that may impact their contributions. Participants learned a project planning and evaluation approach – called Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis (PIPA) – which will help meet CPWF monitoring and evaluation requirements.

Workshop Deliverables: 1. Gender sensitive inputs for predicting future impact of individual projects (achieved) 2. Gender sensitive inputs for developing an evaluation plan of progress towards impact

(achieved)3. Identification of opportunities for integration between second call projects and the wider

CPWF (partially achieved)

Learning Objectives: Participants were introduced to Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis (PIPA) and learned how to construct an outcomes logic model (a summary description of their project’s impact pathways) use a number of project planning tools, including problem trees, visioning and network mapping.

1


The Second Call Projects IP Workshop

The workshop started with a presentation about the CPWF given by Liz Humphreys. Then followed a brief presentation and World Cafe exercise on the importance of a gender perspective in R&D projects, led by Eva Rathgeber. In this exercise, the participants, divided into smaller groups, read case studies involving gender and discussed the issues and the possible implications to their own project design and implementation.

Most of the workshop followed the PIPA roadmap shown in Figure 2. PIPA began after lunch. In preparation for the workshop, the IA project asked each project to review their problem / objective trees submitted in their applications to the CPWF. Six projects of the eight second call projects were represented in the workshop and developed their IP outputs (see Participants List, Annex 1). The participants are shown in Figure 1.

Participants began by modifying and reframing their objective trees as problem trees. They identified determinant problems and the project outputs, the use of which help tackle these “determinants”.

Figure 1: Workshop Participants

2


Figure 2: Workshop and Process Road Map

1. Problem Tree

2. Outputs

3. Vision

6. Outcom es logic m odel

4. "Now "netw ork m ap

W hat the pro j ect w il l produce

W here pro j ect is go ing - G oal

Necessary relationshipsin p lace to producethe OUTPUTS

Helps understand case rationaleand w hat needs to change

5. Key netw orkchanges to

achieve the vision

Iden

tifyi

ng a

line

ar lo

gic

linki

ngpr

ojec

t ou

tput

s to

pro

ject

goa

l

Inte

grat

ion

ofbo

th v

iew

sId

entif

ying

the

evo

lvin

gne

twor

k of

act

ors

need

edto

ach

ieve

the

vis

ion

The changes the pro ject w i ll help achieve, w ho w il l change andpro j ect strategies to be used

7. T im eline, targets and milestones - basis ofan M &E plan plan

Link activities to strategies and outcomes; set targets and milestones

PI PA PROCESS

Participants then carried out a visioning exercise (See Box 1) based on the following:

You wake up 2 years after your project has finished. Your project has been a success and is well on its way to achieving its goal. Describe what this success looks like to a journalist:

What was the situation like before the project started (hint – look at the problem tree) What were the unmet needs and requirements of next users and end users? What are the next users now doing differently? How are project outputs disseminating (scaling out)? What political support is nurturing this spread (scaling up)? What are the end users doing differently? What are the benefits they are enjoying as a result of the project?

The second day of the workshop began with presentations by each group of their problem trees and visions developed on day 1 (see Figure 3).

Then there were presentations on key administrative and communications topics: Mir Matin presented IDIS, Tuppy McIntosh presented on communications and publications and Lalith Dassenaike discussed reporting and disbursement procedures.

3


Figure 3: Presenting a problem tree (PN72: Participatory diagnosis and adaptive management in small-scale fisheries in the Niger River Basin)

The rest of the second day consisted of constructing network maps that show the evolution of partnerships necessary for a project to achieve its vision. We asked participants first to construct a network map representing the present funding, research and scaling out and up networks of the project (See Figure 4). Scaling-out is the spread of project outputs from farmer to farmer, community to community, within the same stakeholder groups. Scaling-up is an institutional expansion, based largely on first-hand experience, word-of-mouth and positive feedback, from adopters and their grassroots organizations to policy makers, donors, development institutions, and the other stakeholders key to building a more enabling environment for the scaling-out process. In other words, scaling-up is the process by which policies, norms, mental models, etc., change in such a way as to support a scaling-out (adoption) process.

Participants also marked in their maps how much influence and what attitude some key actors have in their mapped network.

4


Figure 4: Example of a network map: The color of lines relates to relationships (funding = green, research = blue, scaling out = red, scaling up = black ). The numbers by the actor card relate to the level of influence the organization, and the “faces” (happy, neutral, sad faces) relate to the attitude of that particular actor towards the project.

Network map – PN69 – Valuing Wetland Living Aquatic Resources in China

Participants were asked to identify the main changes that must happen in their networks if the project is to achieve their vision. The Impact Project will enter the network information into UCINET and NetDraw, programs for drawing and analyzing networks. This will allow further analysis.

The final exercises in the workshop (Figure 5) were to develop the outcomes logic model (see Table 1 for example) and fill out the learning Gantt chart, where the projects identify milestones and progress markers (see Figure 6).

There was discussion of the relationship between the ‘learning’ or ‘impact pathways’ Gantt chart and the 'official' Gantt chart (originally requested by the CPWF). The 'official' Gantt chart largely describes activities to produce research outputs while the Learning Gantt Chart describes activities required to produce outcomes. Most project outcomes stem from the use of research

5


outputs. Hence, the Learning Gantt Chart stretches you to think further down your impact pathways than the 'official' one. It was made clear that the CPWF does not hold second call projects accountable for the outcomes identified in the Learning Gantt chart.

The final morning of the workshop was ‘open space’ and included a presentation of how IDIS works and a tutorial on using NetDraw, a social network mapping program.

Figure 5: PN65- Shallow Ground Water Irrigation in White Volta project discuss the outcomes logic model

Table 1: Outcomes Logic Model for PN68 – Water productivity in crop-livestock system

Actor or actors who will change

Change in Practice required to help fulfil the Project Vision

Change in Knowledge, Attitudes and Skills required to help fulfil the Project Vision

What are the project’s strategies for achieving these changes in KAS and Practice?

Farmers (participating farmers in the project sites, and farmers in neighbouring villages)

Adopt improved technologies (that will improve water productivity) on crop and fodder production, livestock management and dairy production

Knowledge – farmers learn the technologyAttitude – realize the value of good hygiene (e.g., milking)Skills – skills to optimize land and water productivity for crops and livestock; clean milk production; marketing of dairy products; animal health care

Participatory trials and demonstrations; training courses; exposure visits; field days; special training for women farmers

Dairy Cooperatives Promote the improved technologies to the other farmers

Involvement in field trials and demonstrations

Panchayat (village leaders)PRADAN, BAIF Train farmers and

farmers group on improved technologies

Knowledge – NGOs learn the technology

Trainers’ training; involvement in research activities

6


Actor or actors who will change

Change in Practice required to help fulfil the Project Vision

Change in Knowledge, Attitudes and Skills required to help fulfil the Project Vision

What are the project’s strategies for achieving these changes in KAS and Practice?

Policy makers (Agricultural Production Commissioner – state level)

Develop and implement policy that promotes adoption of the improved technologies

Knowledge – awareness on the improved technologies

Dialogues; policy brief; invite in project workshops; visit project areas

Figure 6: An example of a Learning Gantt chart developed by PN71: APIA and AEA (agroecosystem analysis) to support decision-making for water allocation for fisheries and agriculture in the Tonle Sap wetland system

Next Steps

The CPWF Impact Project is drawing network maps for projects that requested it.

Second call projects should finalize their worksheets and complete the Learning Gantt Chart. The outcomes logic model (Worksheet 3) is particularly important because while the CPWF does not hold projects accountable for achieving the outcomes identified in the model, the CPWF does expect that projects revisit periodically the impact pathways described in the model, reflect if they are on track, document lessons learnt and make adjustments where necessary. The idea is that this will make it more likely that projects contribute to developmental outcomes through research. If adjustments to impact pathways require changes to already-agreed milestones and activities and/or moving money between budget line items, this can then be negotiated with the CPWF Secretariat.

The CPWF Impact Project will share lessons learnt between the second call projects and the basin focal projects (BFPs). The idea here is that through the lessons you learn the CPWF collectively gets better at turning research into development outcomes.

7


The CPWF Secretariat will send second call projects a template in which to document adjustments to project impact pathways and record lessons learnt to fill out as part of project 6 monthly and annual reporting requirements.

Workshop Evaluation and Feedback

During the workshop we conducted “go-arounds” after completing each day of work as a way of gathering evaluative feedback. On the final day we asked participants to write on cards what they liked and what thought could be improved for next time (a modified after-action review)

Day 1 go-around (after problem trees and visions)Positive, useful exercise

Enjoyed afternoon, learned a lot about the project – took a different view. Liked exercise.

Interested to see your expectations for the next two years and how the communication team can assist. Useful, also as intro to CPWF.

Going well for me, learned new terms. Next user and end user easier to understand than direct and indirect beneficiaries

Will be interesting to see if we come up with same problem trees Exercise is helping me to learn about the project. Interesting Very new, first time. I am an M&E person, usually start with indicators so learned a lot

today You don’t have to follow the steps exactly, less linear than might have thought Very good day, shared some of the frustrations earlier on gender, trying to do too much in

the time. Afternoon useful to revisit problem tree, having only interacted so far by e-mail. Good to take interaction back to the whole team in near future

Attended partially IP work before. Realized PT is more flexible than thought. IP analysis very new, interesting to learn new definitions and process. My second time around – in Johannesburg projects going for 2 – 3 years, also new

projects. Understanding enhanced. Very fruitful. Found problem tree needs to be refined. Think will be helpful in future as

vice director of an institute. Echo, last comment on feeding back to project leaders Enjoyed atmosphere in room – very good. Maintain that IP workshops are important help us feel a bit like a program, systematically

bring TLs and projects together. Helps me as a TL to get to know people and projects better.

Good to see everyone interacting, good energy in the room Happy to be here, good energy, productive work Enjoyed new gender element and hope keep working on it.

Ideas for improving, for future use of tools Found the morning slow – might have been better to all have looked at same case.

Information was missing in the cases Not coming at useful time in the project for us. Better after site meetings next month –

not much beyond what is already in the proposal. Better if done with partners

8


? Couldn’t use the process to go back to partners? Ans. World Fish already using pathway thinking

Timing might be a bit too late, already held inception project in March, where finalized Gantt chart, would have been better if we’d done this before, might have rethought the Gantt.

Would have been more useful earlier Would like more handouts. Dilemma how a 2 year project can achieve both research and impact Linear process of coming to determinants is not so easy. This needs more iteration. Chicken and egg, too early, too late. CP on a learning curve. My concern is what comes out, particularly where project leaders are not present, this

needs to get fed back to project Disappointed by poor attendance, loss for me IP process just beginning, important for projects to go back and repeat with stakeholders

as these have different ideas, and present different opportunities for scaling out and up Surprised projects have their objective trees, but only now working on problem trees.

Day 2 go-around (after network mapping and presentations by CP team)Positive, useful exercises

Interesting to better understand the projects. Liked balance between project work and presentations.

Like flexibility of network exercise to grasp central ideas of project – not stuck in jargon Good day Part of learning process for me – better understanding of peoples’ expectations of

communications. Interesting to see how people are conceiving their projects Have a diverse set of projects, interested to see how network maps Interesting but hard work because looking at whole region. Getting better understanding

of what M-Power is – will influence research when I go back See that we have less and less control over our research benefits Will produce more and more results, less and less control First time worked together as a group. Good to get different perspectives. Network

mapping was quite challenging, changed it several times to see how can be useful for the project

CP Secretariat – presentation good but timing important so as not to loose momentum Submitted a relatively simple proposal. Introduced a second dimension during the

inception workshop. Still tweaking the project design – how to do M&E. Also playing with PIPA. Would be easier to deal with just one dimension

Said yesterday better to do workshop earlier. Today say it is timely. Network mapping will help our project do its institutional analysis. Forced me to understand institutional roles. Realize need to know more. Timely to introduce to partners and get more info.

Enjoyed hearing about different projects, interesting to see differences Good to see differences Enjoyed the morning Can spent too much time in workshops

9


Presentations this morning good. Pleased Barry is here – learning lots. For TLs one of the few ways we get to work with projects, appreciate the opportunity.

We’re here to help and contribute Good learning exercise – made few assumptions based on limited information Learned lots from this morning’s presentation. Good to help understand that projects at different stages. Good to get feedback, questions on IDIS, intellectual property because this is new

Ideas for improving, for future use of tools Still lots to learn. Can help me monitor my own performance Identifying the right person to use the results is important Need time-slots – but when will they be? Hit a wall because of ultra-participatory nature of project. Partners are going to choose

sites, so network mapping is premature Better time management Struggling to catch up with on what I missed. Confused at beginning – done lots of outcome mapping – wondering what are we doing

in another OM workshop. Learning day for me. Would have been good to have input from other colleagues – main

stakeholders not present My concern is whether IPs will be looked at after this workshop – need to talk about how

to encourage this SNA – can conceptually understand. But when we tried to apply – hit a wall –

unintended consequence – we had a great meeting of minds on how project will move forward.

After Action Review (evaluation at the end of the workshop)What was good:

Good for TLs to get a better understanding of the total program. Good for relationships by enabling people to meet secretariat, etc.

What about projects that missed this workshop or that were missing anyone from the project leadership team

I hope projects will go back and repeat network mapping with stakeholders- they will probably learn a lot! Also a good way of engagement between all stakeholders.

I feel that this group will go away and further develop and use what they have leaned in this workshop. I do not feel that this is the case for many projects from phase I. It reminds me of the importance of doing this with projects at the start of the project.

No singing or role-playing (as in Outcome Mapping WS) Good brainstorming exercise- not really “vertical” but open/ PIPA Workshop Network and Problem tools widely applicable in research planning (“in- house” system) Use of networks as tool to assess IPs Good to know the projects and opportunity to discuss on data sharing Good opportunity to learn the IP process Useful tools (network mapping and outcomes logic model) can be used and adapted for

institutional analysis for project.

10


The workshop has turned out to have more practical lessons than was originally intended.

Good understanding of information pathways and how they apply to our projects. IP workshop- exposure to comprehensive networking of institutional linkages and the

inherent challenge for projects to influence and impact on change in these institutions. Useful to learn. Exercise methodology was very effective I became aware of how much I have to revisit gender related issues- as my own

assumptions need to be “rebooted”. Thanks Eva. It was useful to observe how some relationships in the CP work. Sharing project design and experiences Theory introduction with practical exercises make participants do the real work. Networking is important for research dissemination and collaboration. Good exposure Good to see people working together with patience and good attitude Good to see some emphasis on gender and institutional relationships. Useful process/ tools Exchange with others/ discussions Good team spirit and lovely boat ride Facilitation style One-on-one interaction with PLs to address issues, concerns with IDIS and intellectual

property were valuable in addressing from CPWF viewpoint.

What was not so good, to improve: Use of model examples It is good to learn about network mapping among relevant agencies. But workshop

participants are not arranged where we could have detailed information to communicate with relevant people.

Would be good to have time to take the PIPA process to the stage of developing M&E for the project.

More work should be done to give better clarity about incorporating gender and diversity into PIPA

Beer supply on cruise Time management and punctuality Materials provided Structure and outline Definitions 3.5 days? Should be a “package” of workshop materials to help with recall Location of workshops needs to be well thought to bring in more participants of the

different projects. Develop the use of IP to enhance research process and products Need enough briefing on what’s/ who’s required and expected outputs before the

workshop Would be useful to include data need and potential sources in the diagram Would be good if projects in the same basin analyze impact together

11


Disappointed that ALL project PLs were not present or adequately represented. Need to ensure this for future. Need mechanisms to ensure workshop outcomes are shared with projects/ PLs not present.

More emphasis on desirability of going back and doing it with whole project team and stakeholders

Got to find a way to get all projects and adequate representation of project management Increase clarity on the “learning Gantt chart” as an additional tool (benefit, use,

complementarities, etc.) Timing in relation to project starts and securing attendance

12


Annex 1: Participant List

Name Organization Project / Role E-Mail1 Eva Rathgeber CPWF/ Facilitator CPWF [email protected] Boru Douthwaite CIAT/ Facilitator CPWF- IA [email protected] Sophie Alvarez CIAT/ Facilitator CPWF- IA [email protected] Sophie Nguyen-Khoa IWMI / TL PN71 [email protected] 5 Elizabeth Humphreys CPWF-IRRI/ TL CPWF [email protected] Lalith Dassenaike CPWF Secretariat/

Research Manager CPWF [email protected]

7 Suan Pheng Kam WorldFish PN69 [email protected] Diemuth Pemsl WorldFish PN69 [email protected] David Mills WorldFish PN72 d.mills@ cgiar.org 10 Elizabeth Bryan IFPRI Theme 5 [email protected] Tuppy McIntosh CPWF Communications [email protected] Mir Matin IWMI/ P. Manager IDIS [email protected] Boubacar Barry IWMI-Ghana PN65 [email protected] 14 John Dore M-Power PN67 [email protected] Dilip N. Shindey IWMI- IN PN68 [email protected] Lawrence Smith IWMI PN71 [email protected] Kate Lazarus M-Power PN67 [email protected] Suon Seng M-Power PN67 [email protected] Sok Serey M-Power PN67 [email protected] Ram C Bastakoti M-Power PN67 [email protected] Edsel Sajor M-Power PN67 esajor@ ait .ac.th 22 Ruvicyn (Bing) Bayot IRRI CPWF [email protected]

13

mailto:[email protected]












mailto:[email protected]%20






cpwf-bfp-mekong impact pathway and most significant change...

Documents