Nairobi Stakeholders' Meeting - September 20th

The following post discusses some of the outcomes and reflections from a meeting in Nairobi where we convened approximately 15 individuals to discuss the IDRC research fund from three angles – research themes, peer review process and administrative mechanisms.  Representation at the meeting included Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, and included academics, donors, investment promotion centre's, and the commission for higher education.

Scene Setting – Hindustan-Lever BOP Video Presentation

After short introductory remarks by both David Wheeler and myself, the workshop began with a 13  minute video of a C.K Prahalad’s well celebrated BOP case study – Hindustan-Lever’s drive to provide Life-Buoy soap to both urban and rural Indians in a private-public campaign to eradicate diarrhea, eye infections and other diseases, while penetrating the market for soap - Unilever.  The point of the video was to provoke the audience into thinking about PSD and different models of engagement.  It provided the participants a frame of reference for the wide-ranging subject of PSD.  We had a short discussion following the video, which moved seamlessly into the research themes plenary.

Research Themes Plenary

• Different models of entrepreneurship such as collective entrepreneurship or entrepreneurial teams
• PPPs pushing the business model to increase the level of linkages at all levels i.e. at the community
• Private and Public sector co-ordination – quality from competition
• Research by academics in isolation of the demand of industry creates a vacuum
• Link of PSD to social outcomes
• Broader CSR issues involving many actors, the policy environment and the dissemination of research
• Long-term social/economic/political impacts of PSD
• Local business promotion/SME linkage
• Social context/cultural
• What are the best models for replication – social benefits
• Involving the private sector in research

The group at large was given the set of Research Questions from the Unleashing Entrepreneurship conference in the beginning of this workshop.  We asked the participants to form groups of two to three and review the questions, focusing on the two most important clusters in their opinion.  They were also asked to include any relevant questions that might be missing from the conference output.  Due to a tight schedule and a determination to arrive at a consensus on priorities, we asked each person to rank the two most important clusters by show of hands.  Two areas emerged as clear priorities:

Overarching Issues: Strategy and Evaluation      1
Mindset/Cultural Cluster                                        5
Role Cluster                                                             2
Human Capital Cluster                                         8
Financial Capital Cluster                                       4
Enablement Cluster                                             9

Peer Review Plenary Discussion

To set the stage we asked the audience two questions to provoke a conversation around the process of peer review.

1.  Who is in the mix?
Academics          XXXXX
Business             XX
Policy Makers    X

2.  The role and level of filters
A relevance step
Who qualifies
How is it categorized
Pool of reviewers

**When asked what an appropriate mix of peer reviewers might look like, the participants agreed that the mix of Xs indicated above seemed appropriate.

Comments included:

Be conscientious of the time horizon for peer review process
What is the role for private sector involvement
What is the overall criteria for the reviewers and/or IDRC
Multi-stakeholder review panels might lend a level of complexity which could slow down the process

Just prior to the lunch break we asked the participants to self-select into three groups on research  themes, peer review process, and finally the administrative mechanisms.  The first two groups were asked to take the morning sessions already covered into greater detail, while the third group, administrative mechanisms, was asked to begin the discussion on how such a fund would be set up.  After all three groups reported back the whole group would discuss administrative mechanisms in plenary.

Research Themes Report Back

Building on the morning session, this group focused in on the two clusters identified as the highest priority and delved into more detail as to what they felt were some specific research areas within the clusters.

Enablement Cluster - Financial cluster cuts across the enablement cluster
Barriers to growth for Small Medium and Micro (SMM) or SME
Inclusive or flexible model for entrepreneurship (social)
Peacebuilding and the socio-economic development

Human Capital Cluster – Cultural cluster cuts across human capital
Role models that are local/indigenous to Africa – local case studies celebrating African entrepreneurs and business people
Women and disabled foci, traditionally disadvantaged
Role of business associations
Research and teaching capacity of schools themselves
Knowledge capture of already existing East and South African relevant research

Recommendation for a Needs Analysis
Gemini and Gem Reports/Methodology
Looking at other successful emerging markets i.e. Mexico; China (only had 8% FDI) for a cross comparative analysis

Peer Review Report Back:

1.      Develop Criteria
2.      Call for Reviewers – pool
3.      Steering Committee

Comments Included:
What represents the region?
Who should be a reviewer was hotly debated
Internal mechanism to build capacity so that proposals that are rejected can be improved and re-submit at a later time
Small vs. Large proposals - Separate large multi-country proposals from the country based, small-based research
Technical committees should be 2-3 people at most to increase turnaround times
This should be a virtual process with the exception of the regional level committee meeting on occasion
Consider video teleconferencing
Questions around incentives for reviewers to improve efficiency of the system?

Administrative and Governance Arrangements:

The process used to develop proposals for administrative and governance arrangements for the ICBE Research Fund was similar to that used for other elements of the strategy.  A group of five participants volunteered to develop some ideas and then these ideas were debated by the participants in plenary.

Similar to the Peer Review process group, the Administrative and Governance Arrangements group envisaged the need for a super-arching governing board for East and South Africa, and possibly also a policy committee that might comprise many of the workshop participants, at least on an interim basis.  In addition, there would be a secretariat charged with implementation of decisions taken by the Governing Board/Policy Committee.  It was noted that the secretariat would need to have legal status in order to ensure full accountability, but that this could be secured within an existing legal entity e.g. a University.

A number of models emerged in the plenary discussion of the group’s proposals.  These all envisaged an appointed or elected chair of the governing board/policy committee and either the appointment of a secretariat or its emergence through a process of competitive tender.  Some thought that it might make administrative sense to co-locate the chair and secretariat roles.  Others thought it would give greater accountability if these functions were separated, with a more independent chair.  Some thought that the secretariat could be provided by an academic institution, others that an external national or international organization e.g. the Association of African Business Schools or the IFC, or a credible independent body e.g. a Commission for Higher Education, might provide the optimum home for a secretariat.

In order to identify the preferred model from the group, five alternatives were arrived at and each participant was requested to rate each on a scale of 1-5, where 1 = unhappy and 5 = very happy with the idea.  The models that received most support were those that separated the roles of chair and secretariat and either appointed a non-university secretariat or allowed a non-university secretariat to bid competitively for the contract (3.4 approval rating on a scale of 1-5).  The next most popular option was again to separate the role of chair and secretariat but allow universities to bid competitively for the contract (3.1).  Less popular was to separate the chair and secretariat roles and appoint a university-based secretariat (2.2 approval rating) or to keep the two roles combined and appoint both the chair and secretariat from the same institution (1.6 approval rating).

On this basis it would seem that there is strong merit in considering a competitive bid process for the housing of the secretariat but retain the right to appoint or elect an independent chair of the governing body/policy committee.

Comments

[Basil Jones]

I attended the consultative meeting yesterday on the ICBE. Has to leave around 10:00am to attend the launching of the WDR 2006 but returned to the meeting at lunchtime.

The meeting was to design and plan for the ICBE research fund. This is an SID project with duration of 36 months and a budget of $1.6million. There were 15 participants mainly from business schools in Kenya with single representation from Uganda, Tanzania and South Africa as well as representatives from IFC and the UNDP office in Nairobi. It would have been better to have a much broader representation from investment institutions, government and other policy think tanks at the meeting.

The objectives of the meeting was to develop a research agenda based on the outcome of the April conference in Ottawa; to develop a peer review process; and to discuss the sticky issue of administrative mechanisms. From what I gathered this project would be using a research grant competitive mechanism, so they had to decide on the right structure and mechanisms for implementation.

For the sessions I attended, the participants found it a new concept that a donor would ask them to come up with a research agenda and for them to determine the structure of the network. They have been used to donors telling them what to do and they respond.

I think David Schwartz and David Wheeler from York Univ. business school, who was facilitating, were able to get some useful inputs from the participants. The participants were able to identify research themes, the easiest part and also had suggestions on the peer review process. The problem was identifying the institution to host the network.

I mentioned that it would be to risky to host this network in a public university based on our past experiences in working with University based institutions. What has not been tried before is working with the private universities, which I think are less bureaucratic and more efficient.

The approach that was adopted was for the participants to rank various options. It was decided that there will be a competitive bidding process from the business schools to act as host of the network.

I think that there will be serous challenges in monitoring this project. To me it seems that this whole process is being rushed and not properly thought out. It has not really taken into consideration the institutional challenges in Africa. It has taken me well over a year to develop the EASTeRN network proposal making sure that we have in place the right structures. I do not know how the same can be done for ICBE, which according to the PAD is schedule to start on 1 December 2006. (No TORs, governance structure, implementation strategy has been developed.) Moreover with such huge investment in Africa being monitored from Ottawa, there will be implications for the regional office to closely supervise the project in the event things go wrong. They will be counting on our proximity. The regional office will have to get involved on one way or another. I have my doubts that this can take off by December.

These are some of my observations.

[LeOgAhEr]

I Love you girls

Buy

[Chat]

Thank You !

[Chat]

I’d be interested in an updated GoogleAnalytics chart (may be two with about six weeks coverage), just to see if the effect did wear off after a while and also, did others link to your new name with the same link-text (allinurl:…). I hope you will publish a follow up.

[Sohbet]

thank you

[Smullytuple]

ONLINE - DRUGSTORE!
PRICES of ALL MEDICINES!

FIND THAT NECESSARY...
VIAGRA, CIALIS, PHENTERMINE, SOMA... and other pills!

Welcome please: pills-prices.blogspot.com


NEW INFORMATION ABOUT PAYDAY LOANS!

Welcome please: payday-d-loans.blogspot.com

GOOD LUCK!

[Idetrorce]

very interesting, but I don't agree with you
Idetrorce

[grimejeorm]

We have the cheapest xanax prices on the net.
I know where to find cheap xanax.
generic xanax
buy xanax on line


xanax for sale
picture of xanax pill

alprazolam buy xanax
xanax overdose
illegal xanax bar

[grimejeorm]

The most efficient xanax.
I know where to find cheap xanax.
xanax drug test time in system
xanax alprazolam


how long does xanax stay in your system
xanax picture

2mg xanax
buy xanax online
xanax bar picture

[Relaxant]

Carisoprodol is a muscle relaxant. It acts by blocking electrical communication among nerves in the reticular formation of the brain and in the spinal cord.

[bocman1]

Yo estaría interesado en una carta GoogleAnalytics actualizada (puede ser dos con cobertura de aproximadamente seis semanas), sólo para ver si el efecto se quitó realmente al ratito y también, hizo el eslabón de otros a su nuevo nombre con el mismo texto del eslabón (allinurl: …). Espero que usted publique seguir..http://www.dizmex.com

[stefan]

K0XtjP gkosir7v2bcakf8Gsbv420Vs

[enels]

view discount chanel bag and check coupon code available chanel handbag 2011 for less