Making ILRI a more product/outcome-driven organization – a research business

On 12-14 September the Institute Research Management Committee met in Nairobi. One of the key discussion points was how to make ILRI a more a more product- and outcome-driven organization. For this month’s blog I am posting a modified version of the background paper that I wrote to stimulate the discussion.

CGIAR generally and ILRI in particular is a research for development organization which places it in a different position from many other research organizations.

Becoming more product/outcome-driven

Given that we are a research for development organization most of our funding (probably 95%) comes from development budgets, not science budgets. This fundamentally influences the way we need to position ourselves in our interaction with our investors – note the use of the term, I am not calling them donors. We need to be able to justify what we do not only in terms of quality of science (which is important) but also in terms of its relevance and its ability to contribute to development solutions. This means we are fundamentally different from a university for example, although universities are increasingly being challenged to demonstrate the relevance of their research. It was interesting that visitors from Texas A&M University were making the same point the following week, so we are not alone in moving in this direction.

In the past we had donors who gave CGIAR core funding over which we had almost complete control in terms of how we spent it. That model no longer exists for CGIAR. Funding now comes from investors who want to know exactly what they will get for their investment – what outputs and products will be produced, how much will it cost, what outcomes, impact and return on investment will it produce, who and how many will benefit and what value for money will they get?

In the past we may have been able to justify a research grant on the basis that it was contributing to the general body of knowledge about a particular challenge, and indeed many research councils still fund such basic (or blue-sky) research from science budgets. This model of research still forms the basis of the training for scientists. PhDs are awarded on two basic criteria – is the research original and does it contribute to the body of knowledge on the topic. We all agree that such research is important but it is not what most investors provide funding to ILRI for. We may get a tiny proportion of our funding from such sources but other research systems are much better placed to undertake this type of research. We are in the business of doing applied research, directed primarily towards a specific practical aim or objective.

This implies that our strategy, programs and project design must start with specific aims or objectives in mind. As a research for development organization this needs to be the development outcome, not just the research output. This is exactly what our investors are asking us to do. They are asking ‘What development challenges are we addressing, what products will our research produce and how will those products contribute to development?’ Products cover a wide range of types of output, not just a physical product such as a vaccine, new fodder variety or database, but include new processes, policies, organization models, services etc. So in planning our research and in developing proposals we need to ‘start with the end point in mind’. Jimmy made the same point last week when he gave a presentation in Edinburgh at meeting of the Centre for Tropical Genetics and Health. This means starting with the development impact we want to see; identifying what outcomes will be needed to achieve that, what research outputs will be needed and then what research activities will generate these outputs. This is the opposite of how most scientists tend to think but unless we start to internalize this model of research design and management we will not be able to attract the funding we need.

Of course research is a risky business and there is no guarantee that the anticipated product will be produced. The research may fail to deliver the anticipated product, or there may be unanticipated results that generate new research opportunities. This is all part of the research process and investors realize that, but if the research is not producing the anticipated product, or another equally valuable one, investors will question why the investment should continue – the investment might produce a better return elsewhere.

It is therefore a business imperative that we describe, organize and manage our research in terms of potential impacts, specific outcomes and products (product lines). We need to start there and work backwards to describe the research outputs and activities needed to develop those products. We have some of the tools to help us do so, including theories of change and impact pathways.

Making the business case

Another business imperative is the need to convince investors of the value proposition of our research. We are relatively good as describing the scientific challenges we are addressing and the methods we will use to address them – indeed that is part of all our scientific training. We are not so good at explaining why an investor should invest in our ideas. What is the value of what we are doing (not only the economic value) to the investor and the people and problems it wants to reach? Why should an investor invest in an ILRI project instead of another research organization, or in health or education or infrastructure? We need to become much better and smarter in this and we are working on some tools to help us become much better at making the investment case for investing in ILRI and helping to frame our research proposals in these terms.