24maynotes2

ILRI strategy discussion

Group 2 – Nairobi

24 May 2012

Notes by Paul Karaimu

Participants:

1. Okeyo Mwai
2. Vish Nene
3. Jane Poole
4. Seyoum Leta
5. Nixon Bandi
6. Silvia Silvestri
7. Paul Karaimu

What would success for ILRI look like (in 10 years or so)?

1. 'ILRI has a good reputation based on scientific achievement (key point from small group 1).

2. ILRI is a leader in livestock research and a reference point on matters of livestock.

3. (Related to no. 2) ILRI is up to the task of addressing livestock related needs (by doing things differently to warrant being seen as a reference point).

4. ILRI has more impact in eradicating poverty among farmers.

5. ILRI is a sustainable and well-funded organization.

6. ILRI attracts and retains good staff (including scientists).

7. Success would also come from ILRI’s impact (key point from small group 2)

This impact would be define by:

· Use of technologies (e.g. vaccines) and research so ILRI’s work informs policies on livestock and helps improve livestock productivity. Impact both in and beyond the laboratory.

· On the ground, farmers adopt better and sustainable practices as a result of ILRI’s interventions.

Comment: Group noted there is a challenge in understanding whether ILRI works in research and/or in development in determining/evaluating impacts#_GoBack.

What is good and what would you change about ILRI?

Good/Maintain: Research · Freedom to do translational high-quality research and linkages to partners. · Whole systems approach to research challenges.

Workplace · Multicultural and multidisciplinary environment · Good laboratory facilities

Change Research · ILRI to strengthen use of ‘modern language of science’ especially in areas like economics in order to better communication in ‘popular/buzz’ areas of research. (Group noted this might not apply to research themes like biotech where rate of change of research issues is more static). · Emphasize connection between livestock and environmental economics so as to capture angles not necessarily covered under markets, production and value chains. · Focus more on partnerships arrangements and how roles are shared between ILRI and partners. Group felt funding opportunities are currently driving ILRI, in this regard. · Focus on bridging the gap/missing link between development and use (research to impact).

Workplace · Implement internships/research assistance in themes to free scientists to focus on research. · Clarify better the roles/duties of staff. · Better reward mechanisms to keep staff motivated. · Build in-house skills and knowledge and use fewer consultants (because consultants often leave with their skills and leave initial gaps). · Clarify career paths for staff. · Reduce administrative burden on senior researchers (Group noted that CG change process has led to additional administrative burden and that systems are not yet in place to facilitate science management, and where these might be available, they are not efficient. · Need for collective responsibility as an international research organization. Staff does not have a unified idea of ILRI; they view the organization in varied ways and there are equity issues/concerns. Could be more the case in the H/quarters. · Leadership and direction: Have regular reminders about the strategy for staff. Continuous engagement and better communication of overall strategy by management to staff in light of changes that among staff.

May 24: Notes from the Group 1 discussion, Nairobi