PLACE IN REFURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

JUL I 5 113m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ma damage-p 14

 

COLLABORATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH:
THE CASE OF INIA, URUGUAY

By

Mario A. Allegri

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Resource Development

1999

ABSTRACT

COLLABORATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH:
THE CASE OF INIA, URUGUAY

By

Mario A. Allegri

This dissertation is about organizational development in a national agricultural research
organization, using collaborative participatory action research. Sustainable cultural
development is the target of this organizational transformation.

The case of INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigacion Agropecuaria / National
Agricultural Research Institute) of Uruguay offers an opportunity to study issues that have
practical implications for agricultural research. INIA is a decentralized, public, non-
governmental agricultural research organization; a non-profit organization characterized by a
flexible administration of human, physical and financial resources; delegation of authority and
distribution of power, for organizing, planning, budgeting, and implementing research
activities, deciding on its own management procedures; signing contracts and agreements with
private and public national and international entities. In the new INIA, the farmers are involved
in the management and contribute significantly to the budget. Farmers participate in the
Board of Directors, Regional Advisory Committees, and Working Groups.

The scope of this study includes two essential issues: (1) How can we draw from
related cutting-edge literature to create and develop a truly integrative approach to
organizational design to fit a national agricultural research institute? (2) How can we

apply collaborative action research to operationalize the design?

The focus of this research is to assess: how the INIA organization is evolving through
internal and external participation in developing collaborative planning, monitoring, and
evaluation, in order to improve the institutional performance and responsiveness to farmer
needs, and how INIA is adhering to principles of the learning organization.

The main conclusions driven by the research questions are: a methodology was
developed to assess effectiveness, efficiency, quality and relevance in relation to
organizational performance, the collaborative evaluation process became a main
programmatic input for internal environment analysis to create a permanent ascendant
spiral cycle of continuous improvement; stakeholders have been collaborating in strategic
planning with the researchers (proactive approach); a shared mission and vision were
formulated and validated jointly; a demand-driven approach was developed; a learning
process teamwork for a process of continuous improvement was established. All staff
collaborated in the process of reforrnulating the human resources areas. Data from a
survey at the end of the process show that the personnel considered it to be a very positive
experience. INIA is encouraging partnerships, developing strategic alliances with public and
private national and international organizations. The research agenda has changed. From a
restricted focus on a productivity approach, INIA has evolved towards a more complex
agenda, including intensification of the production but also building heavily on the concept of
sustainability, and concern for the environment, quality, and food safety, with emphasis on an
agro-industrial approach, taking into account the increasingly more exigent requirements
of final consumers through the industrial sectors. NA is increasingly concerned and
working to improving its image. The findings are supported and confirmed by some

external evidence during the last years.

DEDICATION

To my wife Giannina for her loving support and contributions
and to my children Aldo, Andres and Maria Elena
for sharing and encouraging me

in this challenging and passionate vocational endeavor.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I want to express my deep appreciation for the commitment of my home organization,
INIA, and to acknowledge and thank it for giving me the opportunity to grow
professionally, and for supporting me in this post-graduate effort.

I would also like to acknowledge to the valuable encouragement of the President of
INIA, Ing.Agr. Pedro Bonino Garmendia, current and previous Board of Directors,
directors, researchers and all personnel of INIA now, and CIAAB in the past, as well as
colleagues and friends who continuously supported me during this particular period of
work and development, and to the stakeholders and staff who have willingly collaborated
in this research.

I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to Dr. George H. Axinn, my Advisor, for
his excellent and exceptional support, encouragement, and understanding. I would also
like to thank Mrs. Nancy Axinn for her editorial assistance. My special acknowledgment
for their generosity.

I want to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Frank Fear for his wise, energetic and
enthusiastic advice, Dr. Tom Edens for his valuable suggestions and support during my
work in the program, and Dr. Kim Wilson, for his constant and constructive guidance and
friendship.

This academic program has been accomplished within the INIA/USA University
Consortium for Generation of Technology Transfer in Uruguay, with the financial

support of INIA/[DB Project, and I am profoundly grateful.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF ACRONYMS
LIST OF APPENDICES
Chapter I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Why a Case Study of INIA — Uruguay
1.2 Problem Background
1.3 Research Problem
1.4 Problem Statement
1.5 Research Questions
1.6 Outline of the Dissertation
Chapter II
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Key Concepts Related to Agricultural Research Systems
2. 1. 1 Globalization
2. 1 .2 Participation
2. l .3 Decentralization
2. 1.4 Accountability
2. 1.5 Autonomy
2. 1.6 Evaluation
2. 1.7 Collaboration
2.1.8 Teamwork
2. 1.9 Sustainability
2.2 The Framework for Agricultural Research Organizations
2.2.1 Total Quality Management (T.Q.M.)
2.2.2 Trans-Frame Analysis
2.3 Collaborative Action Research (CAR)
2.3.1 Components of Collaborative Action Research
2.3.2 Participatory Action Research Modes and Social Learning
2.3.3 Experiences with Action Research
2.3.4 Characteristics of Action Research in Organizations
2.3.5 Relation to Accountability in NARS
2.3.6 The Rationale for this Approach
2.3.7 Assumptions of Action Research in Organizations
2.3.8 Role of the Researcher in Action Research
2.3.9 Methodological Guidelines for Conducting Action Research

vi

xiu
xiv

14
14
14
16
19
20
25
27
31
38
47
6O
65
68
72
73
76
77
79
80
82
87
88
89

Chapter 111

DESCRIPTION OF THE CONTEXT
3.1 Features of Uruguay

3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.3
3.1.4
3.1.5
3.1.6

Geographic and Climatic Conditions
Socio-demographic Data

Economic Data

Political Context

Regional Integration (MERCOSUR)
Quality Culture Context

3.2 Agricultural Sector

3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3

3.2.4
3.2.5
3.2.6

Main Agricultural Production Systems

The Role of Technology in Improving Competitiveness

The National System of Generation and Transfer of Agricultural
Technology (N SGTAT)

Experimental Units for Validation and Demonstration
Agro-industrial Chain Approach

Round Tables

3.3 The National Agricultural Research Institute - Instituto Nacional de
Investigacion Agropecuaria (INIA)

3.3.1 Institutional Background
3.3.2 The National Law for INIA’s Creation of 1989
3.3.3 Implementation of INIA
3.3.4 Structural Type ofINIA
3 .3 .5 Statutory Authority
3.3.6 Physical Resources of Experiment Stations
3.3.7 Financial Resources
3.3.8 Human Resources
3.3.9 The Programmatic/Operative Matrix Model
3.3.10 Priority Setting Process
3.3.11 The Planning System
3.3.12 Resource Allocations
3.3.13 The Agricultural Technology Development Fund (F .P.T.A.)
3 .3. 14 International Cooperation
Chapter IV
METHODOLOGY

4.1 Operationalization of the Framework
4.2 Overview of Research Methodology

4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.2.4
4.2.5

The Research Protocol: Collaborative Action Research (CAR)
Case Study Research

Data Collection

Data Analysis

Researcher’s Potential Subjectivity

vii

90
90
90
91
92
94
95
96
97
98
99

103
105
106
107

108
108
109
110
111
113
116
117
119
120
121
123
124
126
126

128
128
128
131
132
132
133
134

4.3 Description of the Process
4.3.1 Collaborative Evaluation Process (CEP)
4.3.2 Collaborative Strategic Planning Process (CSPP)
4.3.3 Learning Process Teamwork for Continuous Improvement (LPTCI)
4.3.4 Results/Processes Interconnection
Chapter V
FINDINGS
5.1 External Environment Analysis
5.1.1 Ecosystem Description
5.1.2 Relevant Critical Factor Identification and Analysis
5.1.3 Construction of Alternative Future Scenarios
5.1.4 Common Premises and Implications for the Alternative Scenarios
5.2 Internal Environment Analysis
5.2.1 Restrictions in the Execution of the Projects
5.2.2 Opportunities to Improve Quality of the Projects
5.2.3 Strengths and Weaknesses of Factors
5.2.4 Infrastructure
5.2.5 Financial Sustainability of INIA
5.2.6 Human Resource Development
5.2.7 Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (PM&E)
5.2.8 New Project Profile Guide
5.3 Organizational Motivation
5.3.1 The Learning Process Teamwork for Continuous
Improvement (LPTCI)
5.3.2 Multidisciplinarity
5.3.3 INIA’s Shared Mission and Vision
5.3.4 Communication
5.4 Organizational Performance
5.4. 1 Effectiveness
5.4.2 Efficiency
5.4.3 Scientific Quality (Methodological Rigor)
5.4.4 Programmatic Consistency
5.4.5 Relevance
5.5 Problem Identification
5.5.1 Problem Identification in the MTOP (1992)
5.5.2 Problem Identification in the MTIP (1996)
5.6 Research Agenda
5.6.1 Policies and Strategies
5.6.2 Quality
5.6.3 Sustainability and Environmental Concern
5.6.4 New Technologies for Agricultural Research
5.6.5 Partnership
5.6.6 Institutional Image

viii

135
137
147
157
165

166
167
167
168
169
169
170
170
172
173
176
177
179
185
186
187

187
195
197
198
200
200
201
202
203
204
206
206
208
215
215
217
218
219
220
222

Chapter VI

CONCLUSION

6.1 Summary

6.2 Reflections and Further Implications
6.3 External Evidence

6.4 Research Limitations

APPENDICES

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ix

225
225
229
235
241

243

275

Table 3.1

Table 3.2

Table 5.1

Table 5.2

Table 5.3

Table 5.4

LIST OF TABLES

Types of farms, workers and hectares of the main agricultural
production systems in Uruguay. Source: DIEA 1994.

Areas and Programs of INIA.

Restrictions on the execution of the projects in the MTOP,
according to the self-evaluation of responsible researchers.
May 1996.

Mean, standard deviation, median, and mode of the INIA
personnel after the human resource participative reformulation
process (n=197).

Organizational performance scores given by leaders in the
ex—post evaluation of the Projects executed in the Medium
Term Operative Plan (1972-76).

External Stakeholder's opinions on the relevance of pre-proposals

of Projects to be included in the MT IP (1997-2001). RACs and WGs.

99

121

171

195

203

213

Figure 3.1

Figure 3.2

Figure 3.3

Figure 3.4
Figure 3.5

Figure 3.6

Figure 4.1

Figure 4.2

Figure 4.3

Figure 4.4

Figure 5.1

Figure 5.2

Figure 5.3

Figure 5.4

LIST OF FIGURES

Distribution of the AGNP by the main areas of production in
Uruguay. (OPYPA, 1998).

IDB/INIA project resource allocation (1989-96).
Source: INIA, Unidad de Administracién y Finanzas (1997).

Sources of the income structure (%) of INIA, year 1998.
Source: INIA, Unidad de Administracion y Finanzas (1998).

Distribution of the researcher time allocation by Areas.
Distribution of the researcher time allocation by Programs.

Distribution of the researcher time allocation by
Experiment Stations.

Description of the interrelated processes involved in INIA
intervention.

The means/ends hierarchies approach applied to INIA planning,
monitoring and evaluation process.

Collaborative Evaluation Process (CEP) developed ex-post
evaluation of the Medium Term Operative Plan (MTOP).
Adapted from CIPP model.

The spiral of continuous improvement. Adapted from Deming cycle.

Ecosystem and INIA relationships.

Opportunities to improve quality of the projects according to
researcher opinions.

Strengths and weaknesses of main factors included in the
Internal Environment Analysis, during the Medium Term
Strategic Planning.

Evolution of the INIA budget and sources of the income structure

(1994-1998). Source: INIA, Unidad de Administracion y Finanzas
(1998)

xi

98

110

118

125

125

125

136

142

146

158

168

173

174

177

Figure 5.5

Figure 5.6

Figure 5.7

Figure 5.8

Figure 5.9

Figure 5.10

Figure 5.11

Figure 5.12

Figure 5.13

Figure 5.14

Figure 5.15

Figure 5.16

Figure 5.17

Global composition of INIA expenditures (1998).
Incomes obtained by licenses and royalties of crops and
forages cultivars released by INIA in the last years.
Source: INLA, Area Cultivos (1998).

Contribution of personnel to the implementation of the
Continuous Improvement Process at INIA.

Frequencies of respondants on to continuing the application of
the Continuous Improvement methodology to Organizational
Development.

Evolution of the post-graduate degree distribution. 1994-1999.

Post-graduate degree distribution according to countries.

Suggestions to improve quality in the organization from the
INIA‘s personnel.

Changes in the number of disciplines, researchers and commodities
by project from MTOP (1992) to MTIP (1996).

Immediate users of research outcomes, according to the researchers.

Evolution in the proportion of the market occupied by INIA’s
cultivars. Source: INIA, Area Cultivos (1998).

Leaders’ recommendations based on prospective analysis of the
projects in the Medium Term Operative Plan in relation to the next
Medium Term Indicative Plan.

Stage of maturity of the process of technological development of
the projects of the MTOP.

Sources of Problem identification, by Programs, in the planning

of the Medium Term Operative Plan (1992-1996), according to
the researchers self-evaluation.

xii

178

178

181

181

184

185

189

196

198

201

204

205

207

AGNP
CAR
CEP
CGIAR
CSPP
FAO
FPTA
IDB
IICA
INIA
ISNAR
LPTCI
MERCOSUR
MTIP
MTOP
NARO

LIST OF ACRONYMS

Agricultural Gross National Product

Collaborative Action Research

Collaborative Evaluation Process

Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Collaborative Strategic Planning Process

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Fondo de Promocion de Tecnologia Agropecuaria
Inter-American Development Bank

Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture
Instituto Nacional de Investigacion Agropecuaria
International Service for National Agricultural Research
Learning Process Teamwork for Continuous Improvement
South Common Market

Medium Term Indicative Plan

Medium Term Operative Plan

National Agricultural Research Organization

National Agricultural Research System

National Research Council

Regional Advisory Committee

Technical Advisory Committee

Total Quality Management

United Nations Development Program

United States Agency for International Development

Working Group

xiii

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

Appendix G

Appendix H

Appendix I

Appendix J

LIST OF APPENDICES

INIA. Evaluation Medium Term Operative Plan. 1992/1996.
Form to be completed by researchers responsible for Projects.

INIA. Evaluation Medium Term Operative Plan. 1992/1996.
Form to be completed by Program leaders.

INIA. Evaluation Medium Term Operative Plan. 1992/ 1996.
Form to be completed by members of the Regional Advisory
Committees and Working Groups.

INIA. Evaluation Medium Term Strategic Plan.
External Environment Analysis. 1997/2001.
Form to be completed by researchers.

INIA. Evaluation Medium Term Strategic Plan.

External Environment Analysis. 1997/2001.

Form to be completed by members of the Regional Advisory
Committees and Working Groups.

INIA. Evaluation of Ideas of Projects.

Medium Term Strategic Plan. 1997/2001.

F orm to be completed by members of the Regional Advisory
Committees and Working Groups.

INIA. Evaluation Medium Term Strategic Plan. 1997/2001.
Form to be completed by members of the Regional Advisory
Committees and Working Groups.

INIA. Continuos Improvement Process. December 1996.
Form to be completed by all the staff of INIA.

INIA. Continuos Improvement Process.

Guide and Facilitator Teams Workshop. July 1997

Form to be completed by all members of the Facilitator Teams
of INIA.

INIA. Continuos Improvement Process.
Human Resources Reformulation Proposal. July 1998
Form to be completed by all the staff of INIA.

xiv

243

252

257

261

262

263

264

266

268

270

Chapter I

INTRODUCTION

This dissertation is about organizational development in a national agricultural
research organization, using collaborative participatory action research. Sustainable
cultural development of that organization is the target of this organizational
transformation.

All organizations face the need to transform themselves, given the challenges of the
ever-changing world and the changes in the environments in which they operate.

The main objective of this dissertation is to describe how a national agricultural
research organization, the one in Uruguay, engaged in an organizational development

process to improve accountability through external and internal collaboration.

1.1 Why a Case Study of INIA - Uruguay

In order to explain why this case offers a rich opportunity to study scholarly issues
that have practical implications for agricultural research, and an opportunity for change
and development, a description of the country, the agricultural sector, and INIA (Instituto
Nacional de Investigacion Agropecuaria / National Agricultural Research Institute) with
historical and contemporary circumstances is given in Chapter III.

INTA’s primary role is to conduct almost all high level agricultural research for the

country, and is vital for improving products to compete on the world market.

The rationale for studying INIA is based on the strong will and political decision of its
Board of Directors to engage in a long term organizational development process, as well
as their understanding of and interest in participation and learning at different levels by
the staff and stakeholders.

Uruguay has a long tradition of democracy, which promotes participation of people in
decision-making. Currently, the society is evolving a general consensus on the
importance of quality (in products, processes, and management) to utilize specialized
niches in international markets (sophisticated requirements of final consumers). Uruguay
has a National Quality Award, based on the Malcolm Baldrige Award (INIA is a member
of the National Board), and there is a national system responsible for quality
certifications.

The Uruguayan agricultural research system was established in 1914. Even after a
major reorganization in 1961, it remained as an administrative unit of the Ministry of
Agriculture, without any formal participation of farmers, and with restrictions in human
and financial management and frequent fluctuations in the budget. As a result, the
effectiveness of research programs and the ability to respond to farmer’s needs were
limited. Subsequently, there was a consensus that a profound reorganization was still
required.

In 1987, the Government sent a Proposal to the Congress, considering ideas of a
group of researchers, farmer organizations, professional associations and others in the
scientific community. As a result, an autonomous National Agricultural Research

Institute (INIA) was created in 1989 by national Law (Delpiazzo, 1993).

The implementation of this modern legal entity authorized by this Law overcame the
most important limitations and constraints in the objectives, human, financial, and
physical resource management.

The main objectives of the new institution are: a) to promote and to implement
agricultural research activities in order to contribute to sustainable development of the
agricultural sector, b) to advise the Government in relation to technology policy, and c) to
encourage the development of the NARS (National Agricultural Research System) and to
maximize the utilization of the available international scientific and technological
knowledge.

INIA is a public institution under private administrative regulations. This
arrangement, based in its structure and autonomy, provides an opportunity to promote
two main aspects of organizational development: 1) stakeholder involvement and 2)
human resource development.

For stakeholder involvement, the concepts of participation and decentralization are
incorporated in the institution. In the new INIA the farmers are involved in its
institutional management, priority setting and contribute to its budget, matching their
funds with the government.

The Board of Directors, the highest authority of INIA, is composed of two
representatives of the Government and two of the farmers.

There are five Regional Advisory Councils (RAC), one for each Experiment Station.
There are also Working Groups (WG) for each commodity and/or system of production,

with specialized farmers and professionals as members.

The budget is derived from a tax of 0.4 % applied to all agricultural commodities, and
at least the same amount must be matched by Government funds.

The autonomy of INIA in deciding on resource management provided the opportunity
for developing human resources, through a thorough reformulation of management
policies and a comprehensive scheme for merit-based grading, salary, promotion and
reward administration, training, and performance appraisal system of all personnel. It
takes into account the specific requirements of researchers and support staff

A five-year Medium Term Operative Plan (MTOP) was formulated and implemented
in 1992 (INIA, 1993). The evaluation of this plan and the formulation of a new planning
process for the next five—year term, (the period of the intervention of this study), were
assigned high institutional priority by the Board in October 1995.

The author has been working in the organization for the last three decades, and has
been developing close working relationships with staff members and

stakeholders of INIA.

1.2 Problem Background

At the beginning of the let Century, profound changes at the world level in
contemporary forces are affecting local society, with implications for the national
agricultural research organization and agenda. There is a need for change in
organizational development to face these new realities.

Agricultural research organizations are increasingly related to global changes and the
forces driving this external context, characterized by the complexity, connectedness and

interdependence of economic, technological, environmental and sustainability issues.

Therefore, participation and collaborative modes will be required.

Capra argues that the great challenge of our time is to create sustainable development
organizations and communities. Organizations have to address global problems that
cannot be understood in isolation. The solutions to these systemic problems require a
radical shift in our perceptions, our thinking, our values, a firndamental change of
worldview in science and society. Viable solutions are those that are sustainable
(satisfying present needs without diminishing the prospects of fiiture generations). A
holistic and ecological worldview is emerging, seeing the world as an integrated whole
rather than a dissociated collection of parts. Deep ecology considers the world as a
network of phenomena that are firndamentally interconnected and interdependent (web of
life). Key characteristics of integrative thinking are intuitive, synthetic, holistic and
nonlinear. Likewise, essential values are conservation, cooperation, and quality.
Symbiosis (mutual benefits and synergy) became a vital contemporary idea in
organizational development, through collaboration, partnerships, and alliances. “The
basic tension is one between the parts and the whole. The emphasis on the parts has been
called mechanistic, reductionist, or atomistic; the emphasis on the whole holistic,
organismic, or ecological. In twentieth-century science the holistic perspective has
become known as “systemic” and the way of thinking it implies as
“systems thinking” (Capra 1996: 17).

Research by the International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR,
1997) in relation to globalization and its major implications for agriculture research,
emphasizes the consequences of trade liberalization, an increased market orientation,

multiple-source innovation models, regional cooperation, and the expanding availability

of imported technologies. Their research shows that NARS should adjust their policies
and portfolios of research activities in light of changing conditions of competition in
international markets and new opportunities to acquire technologies and knowledge from
abroad through collaborative agreements.

The interaction between agriculture and the environment is another ISNAR concern.
Agriculture, by its very nature, is intimately related to the natural environment. The role
of resource management in maintaining agricultural productivity is gaining recognition in
science. Conflicts of interest over resource use are multiplying, and the effects on other
sectors of resource use for agriculture (and vice-versa) are becoming increasingly clear.
Community participation in research planning, monitoring, and evaluation is one point of
inquiry. Another is enhancing the role of NARS as environmental policy advisors and
designing policy-oriented units for environmental assessment. By promoting awareness
and conservation of the natural environment, ISNAR will encourage interdisciplinary
approaches to the study of food security, human health, and environmental conservation.

The world is becoming increasingly complex but our style of thinking rarely matches
this complexity, viewing it more simple than it actually is (Morgan, 1990).

Senge (1990) remarks that most of the problems faced by humankind concern our
inability to grasp and manage the increasingly complex systems of our world. Problems
are becoming increasingly complex and interconnected.

Bawden (1991) argues that a systemic paradigm requires rethinking the current views
of the world, by improvements in agricultural and rural development. What must be
learned is how to come to terms with complexity and chaos and develop learning

trategies that help to deal with such dimensions, and embrace the new science and praxis

of complexity.

He recognized that reductionist science with its positivistic philosophical roots and
experimental research practices has generally served agriculture well for around 150
years. Technological innovations based on the propositions generated through this
paradigm have played a profound role in the extraordinary productivity growth that has
occurred in agriculture across the globe. However, even though successful in
accomplishing increasing productivity, it had negative consequences such as distortion
and degradation of biophysical, socio-economic and cultural environment.

Organizations are being reinvented and reinforced to better meet the new realities of
the coming Century. Organizational restructuring is giving way to organizational
repositioning. A problem-based approach is being replaced by a values-based, vision-
driven approach; a development approach has replaced a change approach, which means
that it is necessary to envision the future and to organize and align their resources toward
that future state (vision). That is through strategic planning. Collaboration in terms of
cooperation, partnering, and creating strategic alliances has replaced competition. Thus,
improving connections internally (laterally) and externally (vertically) is required.
Management has been replaced by an emphasis on leadership; the environment is simply
too competitive, turbulent, and unpredictable (Fear, 1996).

According to Axinn and Axinn (1997), the view of international development is being
replaced by an acknowledgment of global interdependence. We have much to learn from
each other, and we all need each other’s support. This global caring and sharing requires
international development collaboration. Sustainability and participation will be

continuing issues. Participation, decentralization and accountability are intimately

related issues. For organizations, decentralization is a way of encouraging more

participation and of encouraging accountability to stakeholders.

1.3 Research Problem

For INIA, the bureaucratic form fit successfirlly during a different era. The key today
is to be able to retain the essential elements of structure, organizational effectiveness and
efficiency, while packaging the organization’s approach within a more flexible, adaptive,
responsive, and humanistic frame of reference.

However, affirming this in theory is easier than applying it in practice. It needs to be
embedded in the organization’s culture. Therefore, to make this transition the
organization has to be engaged in a long-term process, with artfirl implementation,
coaching by a competent leadership style and approach, with a high level of trust and
confidence, as well as continuity. Otherwise, the organization might fall back into the
old style of operating, or into a worse situation than before, because of the frustration of
the increasing expectation of success in organizational development.

From an overarching perspective, the framework to drive the INIA transformation,
proposed at the beginning, can be enriched by new initiatives throughout the
transformation.

Unresponsiveness of agricultural research organizations to stakeholders and
agricultural development issues is a main concern. Stakeholders and staff, working in a
collaborative way, can complement their perspectives to better understand and
comprehend the whole system of production, identify the priority needs, and the

relevance of the research outputs.

The strategy of organizational development involves active participation of internal
staff and external stakeholders to improve organizational accountability.

A competitive organization requires the ability to grow and learn from experience,
and consequently to change the capacity of evaluating and reflecting on collective
actions, seeking to improve future performance by utilizing the results (connectedness).

Total Quality Management (TQM) is a useful reference, as a holistic framework for
moving organizations from being inward, bureaucratic, and structural to becoming more
outward looking, stakeholder-sensitive, and people-centered organizations.

The success and long-term sustainability of an organizational transformation depends,
mainly, on the coherence with which an organization undertakes broad-scale change.

The purpose of engaging the organization in a continuous improvement process, is to
move the organization from where it is to where it should be, based on a shared mission
as a point of departure, a shared vision providing the target, and involving external
stakeholders and internal staff in defining organizational relevance, effectiveness and
success.

In other words, the goal is a values-based, vision-driven, demand-oriented,
stakeholder-focused, staff-sensitive, organization in a mutually accepted ethical

framework.

1.4 Problem Statement

The problem to be addressed in this research was identified: to improve agricultural
research’s accountability through external and internal participation in a collaborative
process.

INIA had the initiative and interest to encourage, sponsor and develop this
dissertation work.

The essence of this study has been: a) to create a framework to be applied, and, b) to
implement it.

The rationale for this study is as follows:

We know, according to the literature, that there is a paradigm shift of organization
moving fi'om hierarchies to networks and from rational-bureaucratic models of management
(centralized and top-down hierarchical structures) to learning organizations (people-centered
development management, with internal and external participation in planning, monitoring,
and evaluating processes). And we know that many frames focus on important issues
which contribute to different dimensions of the organization, with their own strengths and
weaknesses.

An appropriate design can be formulated, but when it is put into operation, the
implementation is difficult, and even more, it may fail. In the field of organizational
development there seems to be a great gap between what is being written about
organizations (literature on creating learning processes), and how most organizations
actually operate in reality (still exhibiting bureaucratic characteristics of rigidity and
control). The change from a controlling to a learning orientation appears to be much easier

said than done.

10

Therefore, the scope of this study includes two essential issues:

(1) How can we draw from related cutting-edge literature to create and develop a truly
integrative approach to organizational design to fit a national agricultural research
institute?

(2) How can we apply collaborative action research to operationalize the design?

The focus of this research is to assess:
- how the INIA organization is evolving through internal and external participation in
developing collaborative planning, monitoring, and evaluation, in order to improve the

institutional performance and responsiveness to farmer needs.

how INIA is adhering to principles of the learning organization.
Two major issues need to be addressed in this organizational development study:
- the external environment (how the organization connects with external stakeholders)
and the ways that the organization may be more accountable, responsive, relevant and
useful to those stakeholders.

— the internal dynamics (the ways of improving human resources development within

INIA).

Participation of internal staff and external stakeholders is the subject-matter.
The definition of external stakeholders is: people who have a stake (or a vested interest),
and are affected by and have questions about the research activities, including farmers,

extensionists, policy makers, agro-industrialists, scientists, and government.

11

The definition of internal staff is: people working in the organization, including

directors, heads, supervisors, researchers, technicians, administrative staff, and laboratory

and field personnel.

1.5 Research Questions

Several questions have driven this research. They are:

From a structural approach, how to assess the effectiveness, efficiency and quality of
agricultural research activities?

From a systemic approach, to what extent are stakeholders involved in supporting the
research programs to ensure that the research undertaken is what is needed? Is the
institutional ability to respond to client demands increasing?

From a human resource approach, how is the staff involved, how is their interest and
commitment strengthened, and how does the institution respond to their interest?

From a learning organization approach, what is the organizational commitment and
capacity for learning? How is the mental openness for generative learning, the shared
mission and vision inspiring the future, the system thinking view, and teamwork
learning developing?

From an ecological approach, how are the linkages with other organizations improving?
How is the collaborative mode (internal multidisciplinarity and external networking)
increasing? How are sustainability, environment, and quality issues taken into account

in the research agenda?

12

1.6 Outline of the Dissertation

Following this Chapter is Chapter H including the literature review. In Chapter III the
context of the Case study of INIA, Uruguay is described. Chapter IV describes the
methodology, the development of the strategy for applying the CAR (Collaborative
Action Research) in the case of INIA, and the procedure of the implementation of that
strategy.

The most relevant findings from the process are presented in Chapter V.

A summary of the main conclusions driven by the research questions, some
reflections and further implications, external evidence related to this process and research

limitations are presented in Chapter VI.

13

Chapter H

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Key Concepts Related to Agricultural Research Systems
Key relevant concepts included in this section are globalization, participation,
decentralization, accountability, autonomy, evaluation, collaboration, teamwork, and

sustainability.

2.1.1 Globalization

Globalization as a concept refers both to the compression of the world and the
intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole. The environmental impact
concerns, which face agricultural research organizations, involve global problems. They
are systemic complex problems, interconnected and interdependent. Solutions to these
major problems require a significant change in the worldview. Sustainable solutions are
required. This is the great challenge of our time: to create sustainable development
organizations and communities. Partnership and quality are essential values of the
integrative thinking (Capra, 1996).

A series of transformations over recent years has dramatically changed the world
economy. Globalization has influenced international development as well as key
corporate functions including production, marketing, as well as research and
development. The economic, social, ecological and technological bases used by the

agricultural sector have been changed in an irreversible way. In relation to environmental

14

problems, economic policies of the past gave inadequate attention to environmental
issues. Consequently, the current level of environmental degradation is serious at the
world level. Global warming, the decrease in the amount of atmospheric ozone, water
and air pollution, soil erosion, and current levels of fish, forest and wildlife harvest are
some of the subjects under consideration. It is now generally recognized that better
information, better analysis, and local participation in policy making and monitoring, can
improve priority-setting and policy design. F armers’ perception of their environment as
decision-makers is going to affect their behavior in managing the farm. There is
evidence that in specific circumstances, local and indigenous knowledge have been
successful in defining how to adapt and manage production systems to the environment
(World Bank, 1992).

The increasing interdependence among nations raises new opportunities and
challenges for NARSs, requiring them to re-assess their objectives, priorities, programs,
and organizational structure. In a truly global R & D marketplace, careful evaluation of
capital investment becomes even more critical. Globalization raises new questions about
the need to invest in local public capacity to undertake agricultural research.
Globalization is revealing a great deal of unnecessary duplication of effort. For NARSs
leaders, opportunities for using technologies developed in other countries are increasing
rapidly. Each country has to evaluate what is more cost-effective and beneficial, to invest
in research carried out in the country or to acquire the related technology from abroad
(Tollini, 1998).

The implications of globalization for agriculture research, in terms of competition in

international mark and new ways of generation and adoption of technologies and

15

knowledge, have been identified. by ISNAR (1997). It is suggested that NARS should
response to these new realities through collaborative modes, establishing institutional
arrangements.

These ideas are also supported by Axinn and Axinn (1997:123), emphasizing that “the
View of international development has been replaced by an acknowledgement of global
interdependence. We have much to learn from each other, and we all need each other’s
support. This global caring and sharing require international development collaboration

(genuine between insiders and outsiders, professionals in different disciplines, etc)”.

2.1.2 Participation

People affected by any development activity must participate in the design and
implementation of the activities in deciding what should be done, in order to satisfy their
needs in the long term, and to achieve sustainable development.

One of the most critical reasons for success is that people who are supposed to benefit
from the outcomes have a voice in deciding the content, the objectives, and the methods
used by the system. The extent to which the clientele participate in all aspects of planning
and implementing the program is directly related to its success (Axinn and Axinn, 1997).

Organizations tend to assume that farmers are really not competent to decide what
should be the objectives and the content of agricultural programs, because farming people
often have very little formal schooling and no advanced scientific degrees (scientists should
make those decisions). This is substituting the knowledge of outside experts for that of the
clientele. This becomes a top-down delivery system approach in which others decide what

farmers need to know. Scholars and practitioners of development have a consensus that

16

top.down approaches tend to be much less effective than participatory, farmer-centered
approaches (the clientele participate in determining the agenda, the content, the
communication channels to be used, and even the personnel to staff the system). It
recognizes the effectiveness of systems organized by groups of farmers.

Some social and cultural systems do not have the tradition of participatory decision
making; it is easy to recommend participation, but it may not be implementable.
Participation of those most affected by the change and equity are essential components of
sustainable development (Axinn, 1995).

Whyte (1991a) emphasized the contribution of farmers on participatory processes in
agricultural research and development in Latin America. He developed participatory action
research, a strategy for the integration of professional social researchers with people
involved as active participants in all the stages of the research process, and in applying the
implications of their findings.

Institutions have to be developed so that local organizations can establish procedures
and practices that encourage local participation. This is essential for getting results
sustained over time. Central organizations often impeded participation. Participation by a
wide variety of stakeholders requires institutions to expand, encourage, and manage that
participation. It is crucial to develop processes for decision making and implementation;
processes that include different interests and allow for interaction and learning (Bryant and
White, 1984).

Freire (1970) describes traditional banking methodology, which essentially means one
way direction. This concept can be applied to technology transfer. Scientists should listen

to farmers too, and learn to understand by receiving feedback from them (problem-solving

17

strategy). Both, intent on reality, are both subjects, coming to know it critically, re-creating
this knowledge through common reflection and action. Instead of pseudo participation,
there will be committed involvement

Chambers (1983) indicates the two cultures - academic and practical- share the top-
down, core-periphery, center-outward biases of knowledge. The third culture, of the rural
people in a particular place, is the true center of attention and of learning. To understand
and to judge agricultural problems better, outsiders have to see things from the other end.

Recently, Chambers (1993) analyzing the modes of learning, states that outsider
professionals have learned through rural development tourism (brief visits), and large-scale
questionnaire surveys (collect respondents), but both frequently mislead. The solution
would be the adoption of participatory modes of analysis and sharing knowledge
(participatory nrral appraisal).

Technology generated in central places (monopoly of knowledge) by agricultural
researchers and packages of practices developed are transferred to farmers. Since change
in economic, social, and political conditions is so fast, with a rapidly moving target, the
solution seen is faster with better feedback, information systems, monitoring and
evaluation. Agricultural research is supposed to serve farmers, and it is suggested that the
value of research is the extent to which farmers adopt its results. The “farmers first"
principle dictates that researchers begin with farmer's knowledge, problems, analysis and
priorities.

However, Lockeretz, and Anderson (1993), offered an alternative to the elitist
position adopted by some researchers, who want to do the job alone, developing a

balance between the complementary roles of the two groups. It is wrong for researchers

18

to claim the right exclusively, and is also wrong to confer this right on farmers as an
alternative. Farmers and researchers have different purposes, kinds of experience, and
relationships to agriculture. Neither can do the job alone, but if they are allowed to
complement each other, each can make a valuable contribution. They emphasize that the
choice is not "farmers first" versus "farmer not at all", and mechanisms, such as Advisory
Committee, are adequate forums for farmer-to-researcher and researcher-to—administrator

communication.

2.1.3 Decentralization

Decentralization is a strategy to achieve participation. Systems of production are the
target, farmers (people who till the soil and tend the livestock), are the main clients of
national agricultural research organizations.

The critical linkages of the larger social system, affecting change, determine if it is an
acquisition system (controlled by the people involved) or a delivery system (deciding what
the farmers want and need). It is important that the indigenous knowledge available is
taken into account in the design and implementation of sustainable production systems
(Axinn and Axinn, 1997).

Antholt (1994) concerned with technical change and institutional modernization in
agriculture, indicates the importance of decentralization, client ownership and
responsibility to gain accountability. Even more, beneficiaries should be expected to
support, in part if not in whole, research and extension services. He says that, not
unexpectedly, the NARSs have, by and large, been in the public sector, centrally-managed

and with limited accountability to farmers for their performance. Farmers seldom were

19

expected to have responsibility, even partial, for supporting these research institutions,
resulting in minimal linkage and often-absent institutional accountability. Farmer
organizations, as well as other associations and NGOs, can be expected to take on greater
responsibility for the direction as well as support of those institutions involved with
agricultural technology identification, generation and dissemination. Perhaps the most
important initiative to take is to shift the primary focus of power and responsibility for

research and extension to the clients.

2.1.4 Accountability

"Accountability is the measure of control, accountability is the reason for
decentralization. Thus the heart of the policy issue is: whom should the agricultural research
system be accountable? ..... if agricultural research is to be accountable to farming people,
then it must be decentralized." (Axinn, 1990:10). This means that if agricultural research
has to be accountable to external and internal clients, then, they should participate in
decision-making.

Cost-sharing is very important in accountability. In agricultural research, if farmers
contribute financially to the program, even in a low percentage, they ought to be in
agreement with the objectives of the program (Axinn and Axinn, 1997).

The opposite side of the accountability coin is expecting the beneficiaries of research
and extension to be responsible for some of the support, even if it is only a proportion of
total costs. It gives the beneficiaries ownership and drawing rights on the services, it

contributes to the issue of financial sustainability, and if ownership and responsibility rests

20

with clients, the basis for more demand-driven, responsive service is established
(Antholt, 1994).

Chambers (1993), in the new professionalism, reverses the values, roles and power
relations of normal professionalism. It puts farmers first (last-first paradigm), in terms of
priorities. When farmers are put first of all, for identifying and setting priorities, it is not
merely for whom, it is by whom to develop.

Accountability is a cmcial aspect of administration. The success of a development
program in any particular locality tends to be directly related to the extent of accountability
by the staff of the development organization to the people of that locality (Axinn, 1995).

When a development organization owes its accountability only to higher level members
of a bureaucracy, it takes very different types of actions than a development organization
that is accountable to its clientele. The direction of accountability in many organizations is
spelled out in their doctrine (mission).

In agricultural research there are contrasting examples. When the agricultural research
system is developed by centralized decision, the instructions come from central
administration, to whom the organization is accountable. Farmers rarely visit the research
farms, and the farms don't have too much to offer to local farming people. Professionals
doing agricultural research are not accountable to local clients, so the research results are of
little value to local people.

In the case where the agricultural research system is operated by the growers, the staff
is in daily contact with farmers; they conduct applied research on the problems currently
faced by the producers, and are well-known by them. The system is more accountable to

the growers.

21

Where local personnel are accountable to their local clientele, they tend to receive
services appropriate to their needs and interests.

Cano (1981) in research conducted two decades ago, found that most of the Latin
American agricultural researchers represent lack of accountability to clientele (farmers).
Most of them feel top priority in their accountability to the profession (mainly via
publications in international professional journals), to impress other colleagues rather than
being interested in the quality of their work and the significance of their findings. They
also want to be accountable to administrators and senior officials in their bureaucracies (to
rise in the organization). However, none of them consider owing any accountability to
farming people. New agricultural research organizational models are changing this
perspective.

Antholt (1994) reviewed the performance of agricultural research and extension, and he
indicates that institutional modernization needs to begin now to deal with the issues of
relevance, responsiveness and costs-effectiveness of research and extension.

Imperative reactions to these issues include client ownership and responsibility to gain
accountability.

Even more, beneficiaries should be expected to support, in part if not in whole, research
and extension services.

He points out that, not unexpectedly, the NARSs have, by and large, been in the public
sector, centrally-managed and with limited accountability to farmers for their performance.

Farmers seldom were expected to have responsibility, even partial, for supporting these
research institutions, resulting in minimal linkage and often-absent institutional

accountability.

22

Various alternative methods have been tried out by agricultural research systems to
improve their funding situation. These include competitive project grants, cost recovery,
patenting, and selling agricultural produce. Certain authors suggest that such methods
may not in fact greatly increase the research budget; rather, their main impact comes
from sending a signal to the stakeholders of research that the system is responsive to their
expressed needs (Alston and Pardey, 1995). The accountability effect, with indirect
consequences for funding, is thus greater than the direct effect on resource availability.

These nontraditional funding mechanisms require well-developed accountability
procedures if they are to be credible and acceptable to the main source of firnding (Elliot,
1998)

The exact nature of the accountability and responsibility relationships will vary from
country to country.

Of central importance is the need to insure that the relevance and responsiveness of
agricultural research and extension, as viewed by farmers, clearly and meaningfirlly affects
the welfare of the scientists and extension personnel involved. This means placing real
ownership in, and accountability of, public research and extension organizations into the
hands of the client community, particularly farmers.

Axinn (1978) discussing "Basic dichotomies in agricultural research", remarks that
there seem to be two polar ideal-type approaches to Agricultural Research Systems. The
one might be labeled "Decentralized and Ruralized", while the other could be called
"Centralized and Urbanized". In this topic, Axinn wrote that accountability is one of the

most serious and most neglected dimensions of agricultural research.

23

The product of any agricultural research system tends to reflect the control of that
agricultural research system (where farmers participate, it certainly does benefit them).

People who till the soil and tend the livestock should have voice in the decisions about
agricultural research. They comprehend the whole farm as a system, and they learn what
they need to know to survive on it (holistic approach). Thus the policy issue is how much
control of agricultural research should be in the hands of farmers? Policy designed to
promote a sustainable agriculture, and preserve ecosystems should include farming people.

It requires decentralization not only in the physical locations, but mainly in the decision
making and control about agricultural research.

In order to measure the control phenomenon, these questions should be answered:
where is the accountability?, to whom are the agricultural research staff accountable?,
who will reward them if they do good work?, who will punish them if they do not
produce?

Accountability is the measure of control, and the reason for decentralization. Thus the
heart of the policy issue is: to whom should the agricultural research system be
accountable?

If agricultural research is to be accountable to farming people, then it must be
decentralized, and take advantage of the indigenous knowledge systems, along with the
global scientific knowledge system.

Autonomy is a key concept associated with more effective and efficient agricultural

research organizations.

24

The heart of the matter is accountability. It is the most significant policy issue facing
agricultural research; and a way to link farmer participation with policy planning
(Axinn, 1990).

Collaboration between insiders and outsiders is related to success. The challenge to
administration is how to plan, organize, staff, and direct development activities so as to

ensure maximum collaboration among those who have interest in them (stakeholder).

2.1.5 Autonomy

According to Valverde (1990) in Latin American agricultural research the more
significant constraints were lack of administrative flexibility and excessive management by
government, and limited financial resources were allocated. Because of that, during the
1970's and early 1980's, governments began decentralizing some development planning and
management firnctions, reflecting a shift from dependence to some level of autonomy.

The concept of autonomy relates to the delegation of authority and distribution of power,
and has legal, administrative, and organizational aspects. Autonomy has direct repercussions
on the size, hierarchy, authority, complexity, specialization, and centralization or
decentralization of an organization. The greater the degree of autonomy, the more the
organizational variables tend to search for maximum expression, and decentralization
becomes imperative.

Autonomy can be analyzed as an expression of the administrative flexibility acquired
when decentralized organizational structures, such as the Latin American countries
Institutes, are created. A decentralized public institution is autonomous in terms of its

direction, administration, management, and operation, always taking into account that these

25

activities are in keeping with the socioeconomic development policies of the country and
agricultural sector.

However, in the Latin American country’s NARS the structure, organization, and
management of financial and human resources generally operate entirely within the norms
of the Ministries of Agriculture and Finance as well as the national regulations of personnel
management. These norms and regulations are suited to routine office work, but they are not
flexible enough to accommodate exceptional situations such as those involved in
agricultural research activities.

According to World Bank, NAROs should be placed under new autonomous legal
entities with sufficient flexibility to efficiently manage financial, physical, and human
resources for the needs of agricultural research. The main reasons are: a) greater
administrative flexibility (diverse source of funding, efficient and timely application, and
human resource management), and b) greater involvement by stakeholders to help focus
research on client needs, enhance scientific rigor, and promote a sense of stakeholder
ownership of the institution.

“Autonomy for the new research organization provides more flexibility, but also
demands more accountability to the ultimate objective of any research organization, the
generation and utilization of improved technologies to meet societal needs. The funding
agency must establish effective mechanisms for measuring performance against societal
objectives and ensuring accountability, including: contractual arrangements based on output
produced rather than input employed, and appropriate, realistic and clearly understood

performance measures” (World Bank, 19989).

26

2.1.6 Evaluation

Agricultural research is a creative, innovative, and uncertain activity, and just a part
of it produces results to be adopted and contributes to the improvement of the systems of
production. It can be visualized as a cycle of management decisions, beginning with
need assessment and planning, continuing with implementation and reviewing the
research activities (monitoring and evaluation). “The primary focus is on evaluating the
effectiveness and efficiency of the research program, including decision-making
procedures, leadership, and the adherence of scientists to accepted standards of research
execution and reporting” (Mc Lean, 1988: 18).

During planning, the needs of stakeholders should be assessed; goals, strategies, and
plans established (ex-ante evaluation). To be effective, agricultural research must
generate technologies useful for farmers. To ensure this, farmer perspectives should be
included through their participation, from the beginning of the planning.

In the implementation phase, monitoring (on-going evaluation) checks on research
activities in relation to plans, results, and changing circumstances. It prevents activity
deviation by warning, in order to make adjustments, modifications and corrective actions.
During this observing period, the feedback fi'om farmers also plays an important role.
Knowledge and experience gained during the planning are applied and assure an
appropriate implementation.

At the end of the cycle, a reflexive period to make a review (ex-post evaluation) is
required to decide if continuing, introducing modifications, or concluding it, and

addressing new problems.

27

Therefore, evaluation is appraising the quality of research during the whole cycle,
whether it is proposed, on-going, or completed, in terms of its relevance, effectiveness,
efficiency, and impact. Farmer participation should be present, particularly in assessing
relevance (appropriateness and importance of objectives and results in relation to needs),
and impact (long-term effects of research) to accomplish users' satisfaction with
research. External peer review for evaluating professional standards of research quality,
integrating teams with internal researchers is also recommended.

There are many reasons for monitoring and evaluating (to check on progress, to assess
productivity and results, to monitor resource utilization, and to decide on future support).
Accountability and decision making are the main uses. “Accountability refers to the
responsibility of an individual and organization to account for the proper use of
resources. Accountability requirements have traditionally been met through periodic
reports on resource use and activities; however there has been a growing demand for
more and better evidence of the results and impact of agriculture research. Monitoring
and evaluation are also used to help with decision making during planning,
implementation, and periodic reviews of research activities. Accountability and decision
making should be linked” (Horton et al, 1993 :6).

Outsider participation is crucial for more credibility of the process, gaining in
objectivity, bringing different skills and perspectives. However, a disadvantage has to be
considered as they may not be acquainted with the culture of the organization.
Participation, involving insiders and outsiders, is sometimes difficult due to complexity
and costs implied, in terms of human resources, time and funds, preparation and

conduction of meetings, as well as resistance from researchers to be evaluated, among

28

others. A careful procedure for managing the process, planning and designing of a
checklist and timetable for data collection, analysis and reporting are required.

The Stufflebeams’s Context-Input-Process-Product (CIPP) model proposes four
decision types, generated by crossing and ends dimension with an intended-actual
dimension. Within this model, context evaluation is continuous, while input, process,
and product evaluations are conducted when needs, problems or opportunities are
present. All these evaluations can be used in either a proactive (decisions still to be
made) or retrospective mode (to provide accountability for decisions made). The CIPP
model fit with the system theory. It is a rational approach, very well operationalized
(Stufflebeam, 1971).

Guba and Lincoln (1981) compared evaluation models and the emergence of
responsive evaluation that takes the concerns and issues of stakeholder audiences. The
first was the Stake’s responsive model of evaluation, in order to increase the usefirlness
of the findings to stakeholder, which can serve different purposes and information needs
of audiences. Differences between responsive and preordinate (more conventional
approaches) are in orientation, value perspective, design, evaluator role, methods,
communications, and feedback.

Patton (1982255) defines collaborative evaluation approach as “one in which the
evaluator works directly and in partnership with a group of stakeholders to focus key
evaluation questions, design the evaluation study, interpret results, and apply findings. The
collaborative process is one of shared decision making about key aspects of the evaluation.
The people who have a stake in the evaluation collaborate in solving evaluation problems

and making research decisions. The evaluator is active-reactive—adaptive”.

29

The great achievement of our age is the capacity to generate, store, retrieve, transmit,
and instantaneously communicate information, but the great problem is keeping up and
using information. The challenge is figuring out what is really worth knowing and then
getting people to actually use what is known. The central problem is getting people to use
information. In agriculture the major activity of extension services is trying to get farmers to
apply scientific knowledge. There is an incredible gap between the knowledge and the
application of that knowledge, between generating evaluation information and actually
applying evaluation information for program decision making and improvement.

Program evaluation is the systematic collection of information about the activities,
characteristics, and outcomes of programs for use by specific people to reduce
uncertainties, improve effectiveness, and make decisions with regard to what those
programs are doing and affecting. This emphasizes: a) the systematic collection of
information, b) a broad range of topics, c) for use by specific people, and d) for a variety
of purposes. It focuses on gathering data that are meant to be, and actually are, used for
program improvement and decision making. Evaluation is aimed at action. Its emphasis
as utilitarianism in evaluation (utility, relevance, practicality, and meeting the
information needs of specific decision-makers). Technical quality and methodological
rigor were the primary concerns of researchers. Research and evaluation are concerned
with data accuracy, validity, and reliability. A major reason for evaluating policies and

programs is to make sure that what we want to have actually happen (Patton, 1986).

30

2.1.7 Collaboration

A collaborative mode of involvement is crucial in agricultural research at two levels:
genuine reciprocal relationship between insiders and outsiders, and among individuals from
different specialization levels (interdisciplinary approach).

Instead of competing, by collaboration it is possible to get synergic results from cultural
diversity, sharing mutual support, working jointly, from planning together, and seeking for
long-term relationship.

In the collaborative mode, each collaborator needs from the others, and at the same time
can give to the others (Axinn and Axinn, 1997).

From an administrative perspective, it is possible to plan, organize, staff, and direct a
human group in which all members are collaborators with each other, but also where
collaboration is not the mode, and those in authority expect all others to follow orders, as
they are told, and do not see themselves as collaborators.

Different types of functions may require different types of collaboration. A research
organization is more productive when it takes a highly collaborative team approach. The
leader's role is to ensure that each member makes inputs regarding what, why, and how
should be done, and jointly make the decision when consensus has been achieved among
all members.

Collaborative administrative style supports sustainability development.

Experience suggests that the more collaboration among the people involved, local
community and personnel of organizations, the greater the chance that the activities will

achieve success which will be sustainable over time (Axinn, 1995).

31

The Meaning of Collaborative Mode

Gray (1989) describes collaboration as a process through which parties with different
perspectives of different dimensions of a problem constructively explore their differences
and search for solutions that go beyond their own limited vision of it.

Collaboration is taken to imply a very positive form of working in association with
others for some form of mutual benefit. The intention is captured in the meaning of the
word “working together”; “to work jointly with others, especially in an intellectual
endeavor”, requiring a different leadership, culture, structure and organization, starting
together since the planning phase, working together towards some common aim, such as
the case to collaborate on a research project. Also, among organizations working in
harmony retaining autonomy, integrity and identity (inter-organizational collaborations),
in which each collaborator (person, organization, or nation) contributes and gains from it.

Positive forms of inter-organizational relationship are also described by using terms
such as cooperation, co-ordination, coalition, network, strategic alliance, partnership and
bridge, in contrast to the negative connotation of terms such as conflict, competition, co-
option, and collusion. Collaboration replaced the way of beating the competition
(Huxharn, 1996).

Strategic alliance, joint venture, public-private partnership, coordinated service
delivery, community development are terms now in common usage. Understanding
collaboration is important and it is happening across the world because it is valuable as a
way of effectively achieving results to complex problems. Collaborative arrangements
are purely voluntary, and the reasons for increasingly working together are financial

incentives for complementarities; efficiency arguments by avoiding duplication of efforts

32

and ensuring co-ordination into a coherent whole; self-interest motivation to achieve
results that are not possible alone; and also political for good practice.

Collaboration has three dimensions: organizational form (transformational
organization advancing in a shared vision); structural form (from networks to the creation
of entities); rationale (collaboration and participation are linked in the intention to involve

those affected).

Creating Collaborative Advantage

Collaborative advantage is concerned with the creation of synergy among
collaborating organizations, achieved when something unusually creative is produced that
no organization could have produced on its own. Collaborative alliances have been
identified as a logical and necessary response to turbulent conditions with unanticipated
consequences, such as NARS, by building a collective capacity to respond to this
dynamic environment. Through collaborative efforts, the stakeholders gain appreciation
of their interdependence, improving the responses to the problem, and achieve increased
reciprocity, efficiency and stability among themselves. Creative solutions are needed that
exceed the limited perspectives of each individual stakeholder.

Consequently, the trend to form alliances among organizations to collaborate to
compete or gain collaborative advantage have emerged as a response to turbulent
conditions. In order to keep up with technological changes and compete in global
markets, organizations have been forced to take on partners of all stripes, to undertake
cross-sectorial alliances to stay competitive, to manage extemalities and to shape the

future of the global environment (Peters and Waterman, 1982).

33

Several contextual incentives have been identified that have stimulated the formation
of alliance: global interdependence, rapid economic and technological change, increasing
competitive pressures, blurred boundaries among organizations, differing perceptions of
environmental risk. Sustainability of collaborative organizing efforts lies in their ability
to create and command value, by achieving commitment.

A framework for classifying collaborations can be conceptualized along two
dimensions: the factors that motivate the parties to collaborate (a shared vision or a desire
to resolve a conflict), and the type of outcome expected (exchange of information or a
kind of agreement). Through the process of collaborative formation, there is a general
sequence of phases regardless of the nature of the problem under consideration: problem
setting (convening the appropriate stakeholders and getting a commitment); direction-
setting (stakeholders explore the problem and reach agreement about alternatives);

implementation (steps to ensure follow-through on the collective strategy) (Gray, 1989).

Components of a Collaborative Worlmlace

The principal components of a collaborative workplace are: collaborative culture
(core values), collaborative leadership (sharing and involving everyone), strategic vision
(guiding principles and overall goals of a customer-driven organization, internally
aligned and strategically focused its unique and value-added role), collaborative team
processes (work processes managed by collaborative teams of aligned people who take
responsibility for success and learn skills to become self-sufficient), collaborative

structure (realignment of information system and human resources to ensure the success).

34

As a rule, the members of a collaborative workplace collaborate internally in order to
compete externally. They are part of a highly productive and creative organization.
Their energies are directed toward meeting customer needs. “Collaboration is the
premier candidate to replace hierarchy as the organizing principle for leading and
managing the 21St century workplace. It is a principle-based process of working together
which produces trust, integrity and breakthrough results by building true consensus,
ownership, and alignment in all aspects of the organization” (Marshall, 199524).

The classic tension in organization is between the need to divide the work and the
difficulty of coordinating work after it has been divided (differentiation vs. integration).

In structural design the main issue is to accomplish both how to divide the work and
how to coordinate it after dividing. Division of labor brings the problem to integrate the
different roles within an organization. Connections are very important internally and
externally in organizational development (to help others grow).

Fragmentation and fi'actionating of the knowledge system are particularly main two
problems in NARS, evolving from the emphasis in modern science on specialization and
expertise. There is an inverse correlation between the expansion of human knowledge
and the decline in the capacity to deal with real problems. Plurality is inherent in a
holistic view of knowledge (Kothari, 1988).

Organizations that intend to make substantial use of integrating, managing and
improving teams to do work, must be designed, or redesigned to support this new way of
doing work, in which teams are the core performing units (team-based organizations).

Cross-functional teams are recommended in quality management to make

improvements in organizational transformation processes, as well as speed, cycle time

35

and time-to-market, particularly in dynamic, complex and uncertain environments, as the
case of NARSs.

The team organization structure, which includes the work teams, other integrating
mechanisms, and the management and leadership roles of the organization, provides the
basis upon which to design the integration and performance management processes of the
organization (Mohrman et al, 1995).

Encouraging vertical and horizontal team work and cooperation within and across
functional lines (cross-functional teams) is essential for empowerment, problem solving,
process quality and productive improvement. Also, interorganizational partnerships must
be created both internally and externally. Teamwork and participation, involving
everyone in the organization as well as suppliers and customers, lead to creativity and
innovation, particularly important in NARSs. TQM views the organizational structure as
a system of interdependent processes, linked laterally over time through a network of
collaboration (internal and external). Individuals cooperate in team structures (quality
circles, steering committees, and self-directed work teams), and the reward systems
recognize individual as well as team contributions and reinforce cooperation
(organizational change) (Dean and Bowen, 1994).

Organizations try to achieve formal coordination vertically (chain of command, rules,
operating procedures, planning systems) and laterally (more informal and flexible
through meetings, task forces, committees, roles, matrix structures) (Bolman and

Deal, 1991).

36

The concept of boundaryless organizations behavior, emerged recently, suggests that
the structures will be tending to free movement across those same boundaries, creating
new patterns of collaboration, learning and productive work.

Using a metaphor of comparing organizations with a building, four types of
boundaries characterize most of them: vertical (levels and ranks of people), horizontal
(functions and disciplines), external (organization and its suppliers, customers and
regulators), and geographic (nations, culture and markets).

No longer will organizations use boundaries to separate people, tasks, processes and
places; instead they will focus on how to permeate those boundaries (to move ideas,
information, decisions, talent, rewards, and actions where they are most needed). To find
more innovative, creative ways to generate and generalize ideas is essential.
Organizational communications (internal and external clients) contribute to share ideas
and improve competitiveness (important for NARSs.).

The new organizational success factors (speed, flexibility, integration, and
innovation) are making boundaries less relevant. It is necessary to form collaborative,
collegial, and consultative arrangements, and to forge a new model of collaboration
making the relationships successful in the long run, such as new channels of
communication between cross-firnctional teams, customers, and suppliers and across
geographies, through the effect of technology development. Ongoing dialogue and action
require organizations to change their basic supporting infrastructures to reinforce and
encourage cross-boundary collaborations. The main characteristic of high-performing
teams is their mobilization around a shared goal. In boundaryless organizations, the

power of teams comes from their drive to achieve goals (Ashkeenas et a1, 1995).

37

Collaboration has costs, investment of time and energy. It involves patient listening
to each other by specialists, and from outsiders, hard work to establish a common
framework and operational mode to solve problems. It is also an act of sharing, of inter-
personal trust and appreciation, of mutual support, a quantitative and a qualitative
phenomenon (incremental growth potential, to be measured in the long term).

A research team, increasingly necessary in NARSs, is more productive and with
greater chances that the activities will achieve success, be sustainable over time, when it
takes a highly collaborative approach, in which the leader's role is to encourage each

member, and jointly make decisions when consensus has been achieved.

2.1.8 Teamwork
The Need of Teamwork in NARSs

Scientific and technological progress engenders teamwork in research. The growth of
team research is not due entirely to the increasing scale of research projects, the advance
of knowledge has come to depend on the active collaboration of scientists with
specialized skills drawn from a number of distinct research areas. Contemporary
technological and social issues as the science evolves towards greater involvement in
practical complex problems, inevitably shape the organization of research into
multidisciplinary teams.

Teams can be defined as any group of people who need each other to accomplish a
result. The relevant learning in an organization is done by people who have the power to
take action and are involved in the main processes (internal and external). In this wide

definition, a team might mean a worldwide network of specialists, communication

38

through electronic mail, telephone, and occasional face-to—face meetings. Thus, one
critical element of team learning is developing a collaborative way to design the broader
infrastructure which determines how teams are identified and supported in their work.
Team learning, the process of learning how to learn collectively, is the most challenging
discipline- intellectually, emotionally, socially, and spiritually (Senge, 1994).

Multidisciplinary team research is thus a manifestation of the increasing
connectedness of the whole scientific and technological knowledge. It is difficult to
solve a problem within an isolated research tradition, the way is to conduct the research
by a closely interacting group of people, contributing from their different points of view
and particular expertise to the common effort.

It is easier to argue than to implement in a multidisciplinary approach the contribution
of specialists from different scientific backgrounds. Everyday intellectual and technical
collaboration from very different research traditions is a must for an effective team
research. A multidisciplinary team working on a well-defined research project often is an
effective means for breaking down barriers. One of the main effects of scientific and
technological progress is to hasten a trend from individual to collective modes of work
(Ziman, 1994).

Sustainable agriculture requires the recognition of internal dynamics of ecosystems,
complex array of interactive processes, interdependence and interactions between
ecosystems, as well as the indigenous knowledge and primary interests and actions of the
end-users. It focuses on both end-user and societal benefits (human needs and
environmental, social, and economic goals) and puts the traditionally “last” first by

including the farmer in the identification, design of potential solution, and formulation of

39

recommendations, and the final decision on the appropriateness of the technology
(Chambers, 1989).

The development of a new paradigm for agriculture and natural resource management
includes an integrative, interdisciplinary and multi-institutional approach to research and
extension activities, centered around the end-users and an improved understanding of the
ecosystems and their human, social, physical and biological dimensions.

Successful adaptive interdisciplinary research must begin with, and end with users. If
they are involved from the earliest stages in identifying problems, designing solutions,
and evaluating the outcomes, by using community meetings, end-user group interviews
and key informants, the adoption of the proposed solutions is facilitated. This
methodological focus on end-users is premised on the assumption that rural households
are creative, experimental, and excellent decision makers in their own right, and utilize
indigenous knowledge. Farmer to farmer model starts with a farmer-scientist diagnosis
and a common definition of problem developed in concert, then, seeking solutions
through interdisciplinary research.

Uphoff (1992) working on inter-disciplinary and practical institutional collaboration,
identifies potential sources of constructive social energy: ideas, ideals and friendship. All
of them are both-and (vs. either-or) and positive-sum (vs. zero-sum) thinking, and can
make significant contributions to development by maximizing the use of existing
resources through cooperation rather than conflict such that a win-win situation is
created.

According to Covey, synergy works as is a correct principle, effective in an

interdependent reality, team work, team building, the development of unity and

40

creativity with other human beings. “Win/Win is a frame of mind and heart that
constantly seeks mutual benefit in all human interactions. Win/W in means that
agreements or solutions are mutually beneficial, mutually satisfying. It is a better way, a
higher way” (1989:207).

In complex organizations such as NARS, few problems arise in such form that they
can be solved by the use of any single discipline. By working in the field with
participation of different expertise, the team learns and arrives at a far more useful and
scientifically valid research strategy than would be possible simply analyzing a problem
from the standpoint of one discipline, overcoming the single-discipline limitation
(Whyte, 1991b).

Project appraisal is dominated by the hard technical disciplines, and the soft ones
(ecology, anthropology, sociology) tend to be marginal to the planning process
(Chambers, 1983).

ISNAR studies suggest mechanisms of inter-institutional coordination and
collaboration that would improve the effectiveness and efficiency of linkages between
actors and institutions to increase the involvement of small farmers and the
communication channels (Farrington et a1, 1994). Effective management requires a
skilful combination of strategies involving human resource development, stakeholder
participation, and institutional reorganization (Busch and Bingen, 1993).

Senge (1990) indicates requirements for an effective team are the importance of
energy, enthusiasm and effort alignment through a clarity of shared vision and systems

thinking; dealing with the current reality of conflict and learning how to work with, rather

41

than against, the defensive routines; and learning team skills. Learning teams learn how
to learn together.

Research questions have to be the problems occurring in the multifaceted outside
world, not simply from the intellectual curiosity of researchers, overriding disciplinary
boundaries. Agricultural problems must dictate the structure of research, thus,
multidisciplinary research is especially suitable for sustainable agriculture.

Multidisciplinary, meaning any alternative to single-discipline research (in a loose
way), and interdisciplinary when there is more interaction among them, but currently
both labels are used, as c00peration by several disciplines in trying to explain the same
phenomenon (Lockeretz and Anderson, 1993). The interdisciplinary format is a
mechanistic, aggregative, and integrative process rather than a transformative process
which is what really takes place. What actually happens can be better described as trans-
disciplinary (extra-disciplinary) knowledge rather than interdisciplinary orientation. For
true interdisciplinarity to develop it is the individual who has to become interdisciplinary,
not the group. It is possible to refer to transdisciplinary as a term that implies even more
than multidisciplinarity, connecting across the frames, developing a analytical
capacity (Fear, 1996).

Technological challenges of NARSs in the 21S” century are related to the new
biotechnologies (molecular biology and genetic engineering) that make agricultural
research more directly dependent on disciplines, and in specialized laboratories, far from
farmer's fields. There will be a need for adaptive research and feedback, and new links
will have to be designed among these laboratories, farming people, extension, local

agencies, government and NGOs, private firms, national and international development

42

organizations. Participation by stakeholders requires institutions to expand, encourage,
and manage that participation, for decision making and implementation, and for
interaction and learning (Bryant and White, 1984).

The challenge to administration is how to ensure maximum collaboration among
those who have a vested interest (stakeholders). Decentralization efforts will not succeed
without strengthening organizations that facilitate the active participation of rural people
in the development and policy-making process (F A0, 1996). The evolution of NARSs is
toward to a corporate culture based on collective efforts, cross-firnctional work, coaching,

enabling farmer satisfaction, and quality principles.

Toward Collaboration and Interdisciplinarity in NARSs

The first step is to realize that this approach is needed. Now, everyone invokes
interdisciplinarity. It is important to identify a research t0pic that requires cooperation of
every discipline involved. It is not just “work together”. Interdisciplinary research is
usefirl and mutually stimulating when a problem has been identified and then scientists
with knowledge and skills relevant to its investigation are brought together to work on it.

The attitude to interdisciplinarity emerges when scholars from diverse disciplinary
backgrounds work together around a clearly identified problem. Two other prerequisite
of the success are a temperamental openness of the participants and their capacity to
tolerate ambiguities, a high level of intellectual comprehension which enables them to
transcend their specialized training, sharpen their academic sights and produce a new

language of communication in the process of defining a given problem.

43

Just including the right scholars on the research project is necessary but not sufficient
condition, it does not guarantee that it can do the right kind of multidisciplinary research.
Conversely, not every study needs team members from all the relevant disciplines.

Agricultural research is sufficiently multidisciplinary and too specialized.
Multidisciplinarity in alternative agriculture is not an end in itself, it is only a means to an
end (a process of knowledge that is integral, sensitive and capable of creative intereaction
with reality). Multidisciplinarity in form does not always mean multidisciplinarity in
spirit. Both multidisciplinary and single-discipline approaches will continue to be
important.

Institutional reasons for fragmentation are the reward system, funding mechanisms,
the departmental structure, the channels of professional communication, therefore,
institutional changes are required to improve it. Institutions have to provide intellectual
stimulation, frank dialogue, a self-questioning search and a model of integration based on
plurality and multiplicity of view-points, an atmosphere in which intellectual curiosity
and creativity are stimulated and individual worth is recognized. Through dialogues,
debates and focused workshops, this research seeks to explore new modes of
participation. The problem-oriented approach has confronted the scholars with the
challenge of transcending the rigid boundaries of disciplines, and with the need to avoid
a fragmentary approach to knowledge.

The way scientists view the world also tends to fragmentation through the
unidimensional understanding of the nature of knowledge. Scientific thinking is based on
reductionism (dividing complex phenomena into simpler components), analysing the

whole as the sum of its parts. In contrast, agroecology (framework for long-term

44

sustainability of agricultural systems) is described as holistic while conventional sciences
are atomistic. Disciplinary development can be a force for both synthesizing and
fragmenting scientific research. Reductionism assumes that nature, and reality, are
simple. However, NARSs have to face complex and dynamic realities, composed of
mulitple-simultaneous, interdependent cause-effect-cause relationships (Senge, 1990).

Multidisciplinary research and on-farm research are associated with alternative
agriculture. Farmers'contributions can improve the planning, priorities, designing,
carrying out, execution, evaluating and diffusion of research projects. If research purpose
is to serve farmers, they have to incorporate their voice into the research process. But,
farmers' and researchers' respective responsibilities must be clear, the researchers must
adapt the experiment to what they judge each farmer can do; and farmers should have
some sense of owning the research. Relationship between farmers and researchers will
enable research to best meet its obligations to farmers, while also meeting its obligations
to society as a whole. A balance must be sought between the complementary roles of the
two groups.

The farmer-first principle dictates that researchers begin with farmers' knowledge,
problems, analysis and priorities (Chambers, 1993). It presupposes that farmers are the
only beneficiaries of agricultural research, and does not consider other groups that
support public research and are affected by it (environmentalists, safe food advocates,
society). The choice should not be farmer-first versus farmer-not-at-all. Research
undertaken in response to farmers’ demands tends to be shorter-term and more highly
applied, and to give low priority to environmental effects, off-farm socio-economic

consequences, and long-term resource implications. Mechanisms, such as farmer

45

advisory committee are adequate forums, leading to agricultural researchers spending
more time listening to farmers’ problems.

A well-planned research program requires a mix of projects long-term and short-term;
component and system-level; concerned with specific production systems and with
general processes; and local, regional, and national. Researchers, farmers, and other
groups affected by research look at the same question differently, and properly so.
Farmers and researchers have to complement each other with their different purposes,
kinds of experience, and relationships to agriculture. Neither can do the job alone, but if
they are allowed, each can make a valuable contribution (Kothari, 1988).

Self-directed works learning means that the learner directs the learning, what is
learned, how, and when. Who controls the learning process is the learner. Creativity,
feeling, continuity, and reflexivity are vital qualities of learning as a way of being
(Vaill, 1996).

“Making teamwork is an essential part of the workplace, especially when structured in
the form of self-directed work teams (SDWT), represents a s0phisticated and advanced
form of organizational innovation. A considerable amount of sawy (intellectual
and strategic) will be required to introduced and sustain team-based
performance” (Fear, 1998z9).

Essential to client accountability, decentralization, gender sensitivity, participation,
and therefore sustainability, is a different mode of involvement in development. It is a
mode in which the outsider's assumptions that they know best what insiders need are
replaced by a new type of genuine collaboration among insiders and outsiders. It is also a

mode in which specialized professionals from any one field or discipline acknowledge

46

that they need to work with and support specialized professionals from other fields. A
different style of relationship more efficient, more effective, and more appropriate is the
collaborative mode. An organizational structure for NARSs should facilitate cross-
disciplinary cooperation, coordination, and communication among researchers from
different scholars and stakeholders for maximum effectiveness. A major challenge to

NARSs is how to reorganize for collaboration (Axinn and Axinn, 1997).

2.1.9 Sustainability

It is increasingly recognized that the natural resources are not unlimited, and there are
no more new frontiers to explore. The international cooperation efforts focused on
agriculture development are led to consider sustainability in planning and implementing
activities.

Sustainability is a temporal, holistic concept. The challenge for agricultural research is
to contribute for human progress meeting today’s needs, without compromising the
consequences for future generations.

In agriculture there are sustainability constraints in over-use of agrochemical and
irrigation in intensive large-scale commercial systems, and high pressure on the carrying
capacity of the fragile ecosystems in marginal areas (Axinn, 1995).

The desirable change has to be sustainable over time. Evaluation of projects should be
considering the long-term, taking into account sustainability (with some follow up during

the first years).

47

The long-term sustainability of agriculture requires commitment to evaluate objectively
as complete a range of practices and systems as possible and to communicate effectively

the findings to the agricultural community (Edens, 1985).

The Evolution of the World Concern on the Environment

Since 1960 there has been a growing understanding of the adverse ecological impacts
of development. A relevant conference held at Virginia (1968), and other meetings were
organized by conservation organizations and development agencies (Adams, 1994).

Chronologically, environmental issues can be associated with the UN Conference in
Stockholm, Sweden (1972), where two opposite positions were established: continuing
development even with contamination, and in contrast, stopping contamination to
improve quality of life. After that, a remarkable evolution of the latter approach was
evident.

In the UN Conference on Environment in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (1992) the
importance and urgency for addressing sustainable development and environmental
protection, as well as the concern about the future world’s ability to feed itself, was
featured (UNCED, 1992). As a consequence of the Conference, 1805 14000 Norms
started to be developed in March, 1993. Hence, public sector, mass communication,
consumers and transnational companies are contributing to globalization, bringing
environmental management.

According to Ruttan (1996) for the third time since World War II, there is a social
concern about the availability of our natural resources and the quality of our environment.

The focus was primarily on how the scarcity of resources would limit economic growth

48

(1940s), later about the pollution generated by growth associated with technologies such
as pesticides and fertilizers (19605), and now, on environmental changes that are
occurring on a transnational scale -issues such as global warning, ozone depletion, and

acid rain— and their effects on environmental quality, food production and human health.

The Increasing Involvement of Consumers

The increasing concern of the final consumers for both health and environmental
conditions, represents an opportunity for export-oriented countries, like Uruguay, if they
take into account marketing strategies and research, with an ecological approach
committed to the development of its own agricultural resources.

It requires more than a product free of potential toxic residuals. The system of
production has to be based on a profound knowledge of nature, in harmony with natural
cycles (minimum use of hormones, antibiotics, agrochemicals and other materials
harmful to human health or the environment). The process has to be clean and
sustainable, and aimed to accomplish a proper flow of energy and nutrients, with a
minimum use of inputs, and also has to meet an acceptable environment and natural
resources cost.

For the past years, the public sector was in charge of the environmental control;
presently the NGOs are also participating and, in the future, consumers are expected to be
integrated with them. Consumers will make pressure on organizations for environmental
management reconversion, particularly on the agricultural systems of production

(ecolabels).

49

A Paradigm Focused on Productivity

The agricultural research-extension systems, in the past, have worked to optimize, and
even maximize yields, without regarding as a main concern the effects on sustainability
and environmental conditions.

High productivity is a goal of all agricultural systems, as it has been in the past and
will certainly be in the future. This means efficient use of resources for optimal output to
serve personal, social and economic needs. However, all of this must be done with
socially and politically acceptable environmental disruption. All agriculture, by
definition, creates environmental disturbance in the natural systems, in an ecological
sense, through human intervention. Potential yields imply achieving high flow of
nutrients from soil to crops, and, through animals back to soil. Losses in the surrounding
environment must be minimized. In the last three decades, development in the expansion
for efficiency was characterized by inputs domination, capital investment in machinery
and chemicals, replacing labor, and were criticized for their adverse environmental and
social impacts (Hardwood, 1994).

The yield increase does not come without costs. The US EPA, has identified
agriculture as the largest non point source of surface water pollution. Pesticides and
nitrate from fertilizers are detected in the groundwater, soil erosion remains a concern,
pest resistance to pesticides continues to grow, pesticide residues in food has yet to be
resolved, inputs have become a significant part of total operating costs (NRC, 1989).

Today’s conventional agricultural systems have serious shortcomings. Environmental
problems are caused by generations achieving goals by themselves. This economic

stability achievable is politically attractive. The criteria for evaluating short-term

50

performance (labor productivity and yield per unit of land area) has caused an increment
in agricultural productivity, but has led to a capital- and an energy-intense activity. The
available resources, without a real technological shift, will not be enough to satisfy
current and expanded needs. Consequently, the agricultural production system will be
unsustainable. To adopt just these economic criteria without evaluating the impact of the
innovations on the agricultural system as a whole, may have negative impact on the
sustainability of the system in the long term. Hence, the importance of a system criteria
for choosing priorities in agricultural research (Edens et a1, 1985).

During the 1960s, the “Green Revolution” package promoted technical change in
order to modernize agriculture in the developing world by the International Research
Centers (introducing and expanding high productivity technologies based on high levels
of inputs and efficiency). This model had different impacts in the world. Despite the
success in increasing agricultural outputs, some valid concerns have arisen: indigenous
knowledge systems were ignored and replaced by foreign concepts, increased
dependence upon purchased inputs, increased use of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides
has led to pollution and detrimental ecological impacts, increase in the demand for energy
in the agricultural sector, and affected the narrow genetic base (World Bank, 1992).

The National Research Council Report (1989) describes the human and
environmental costs of high-input production methods in USA as: soil erosion and other
forms of degradation, deforestation, desertification, declining water quality and
availability, nonpoint source water pollution, groundwater contamination, salinization,
disruption of hydrogeological cycles, aquifer depletion, loss of biological diversity,

resistance to pesticides, human health associated with pesticide application and residues.

51

The main elements of “Green Revolution” concepts are still used in International and
National Centers in order to prioritize research and extension policies, and this is the case
of INIA. The long-term effects of the application of these policies became more evident

in the 19903. However, a strong resistance against change is shown (Chambers, 1993).

A New Paradigm Emerging on Sustainability

Sustainable agriculture and natural resources are at this moment central issues in
public and policymakers agendas taking into account the real concern about
environmental protection, natural resources responsibility, and the world’s ability to feed
ever-growing populations.

The quality of human life and of the environment are truly linked. The issues
transcend science and national boundaries, involving critical considerations of
intergenerational responsibilities and equity. The awareness of the interdependence of
agriculture, the environment, and socioeconomic conditions affect the sustainability of
current agricultural production systems.

There are systems of production adOpting alternative practices (crop rotation,
integrated pest management, and increased use of on-farm nutrient sources) that preserve
the natural resources base and the environment. As the availability of new arable lands
decreases, sustainability will require enhancement and improved management of soil and
water resources and the protection of biodiversity in the system (NRC, 1991).

These interrelated factors can derive from losses in agricultural productivity at local

and regional levels, raising concerns about food security, food quality, public health, and

52

other long-term development issues, both environmental quality and economic
development.

Agricultural research institutions, then, must focus more on technologies and
practices that are less dependent on energy and agrochemicals, and more friendly to the

environment, than those now in common use.

The Concept of Sustainability

Sustainability has been defined as: “development that meets the needs and aspirations
of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs” (Bruntland Commission Report, WCED, 1987); “the successful management of
resources for agriculture to satisfy changing human needs while maintaining or
enhancing the quality of the environment and conserving natural resources”
(TAC/CGIAR 1989); and “the management and conservation of the natural resource
base, and the orientation of technological and institutional change in such a manner as to
assure the attainment and continued satisfaction of human needs for present and firture
generations” (F A0, 1991).

The common view is that sustainability is a stated goal which particularly implies
value options; meeting the essential needs of today’s population without compromising
the ability of fixture generations to meet theirs, living on the planet without depleting
nature’s capital; and managing natural, human and financial resources in order to increase
long-term wealth and well-being. The definitions, however, do not say how

sustainability may be achieved, what are legitimate needs of future generations and who

53

judges them. The emergent debate will bring different perspectives because our needs
would be defined in relation to what we are accustomed to and what we hope for.
Sustainability is a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the
direction of investments, the orientation of technological development, and institutional
change are all in harmony and enhance both current and future potential to meet human
needs and aspirations. Sustainability as an agronomic concept refers to the ability of land

to maintain productivity on the long run (EPSD, 1990).

Sustainable Agriculture

Sustainable agriculture is a recent response to these environmental and economic
concerns. The intensification for high productivity stressed the importance of the renewal
capacity of agricultural ecosystems and claimed that many conventional agricultural
practices were detrimental. Now, an emerging approach to agriculture incorporates the
principles of ecology by emphasizing interactions among and within all the components
(physical, biological, socio-economic) of agroecosystems.

As the need for environmentally, socially, and economically compatible adjustments
to conventional agriculture is recognized, sustainable agriculture provides for the needs
of current and future generations while conserving natural resources. Thus, it implies
values dealing with equity among people presently and among this generation and future
ones.

Agricultural production and environmental management share common, rather than
competing goals (agriculture and all its interactions with society and the greater

environment). It implies long-term maintenance of natural resources and agricultural

54

productivity, minimal adverse environmental impacts, adequate economic returns to
farmers, optimal crop production with minimized chemical inputs, satisfaction for human
needs for food and income, and provision for the social needs of farm families and
communities, to ensure flexibility within ecosystems to respond to stress (NRC, 1991).
Therefore, sustainable agriculture is the product of two agendas in conflict: socio-
economic and environmental. The idea, thus, is an intermediate pathway that
harmonizes them. (Ruttan, 1996). It has three dimensions: physical (most common use
to mean that an activity can be kept going for a long time without running out of non-
renewable resources, and without generating negative feedback); biological (ecosystems);
and socio-economic implications (responsible, acceptable, desirable or morally right).

It is necessary now to make improved environmental quality part of the research
objectives, developing more environmentally sound technology and advice on prevention
of natural resources depletion and contamination.

Agricultural sustainability is viewed from different perspectives (productivity,
stewardship and community schools). The position should be responsible agriculture, in
favor of economically viable, ecologically sound and socially just agricultural systems
(Douglas, 1985).

Sustainable agriculture systems should be stable (reduce risk and lead to continuity in
income and food supply for the short-term needs of farmers without long-term
environmental costs), resilient (adaptation to changes in the physical, biological, and
socioeconomic environments), environmentally acceptable (avoid erosion, pollution, and

contamination, minimize adverse impacts on adjacent environments, and reduce the

55

threats to biodiversity), economically viable (in both short and long term), and socially

compatible (with local people and political economies) (NRC, 1991).

Eflicient and Sustainable Use of Resources

Economics is about the efficient use of resources. Economic sustainability depends
upon the sustainable use of resources, except that one resource can substitute for another.
All processes should be sustainable, in the sense that it can be continued in the firture,
without the resources needed running out. There is a difference between using a resource
and using it up. The rate and the purposes to be used and by whom have to be strongly
justified.

The systems of production have to assume that the required inputs (energy, fertilizer,
water, foodstuffs) will not always be readily available, and that the non-product outputs
(excreta, effluent, nitrates, methane) might contribute to unacceptable levels of pollution.

Sustainable agriculture includes: preservation of natural resources, improving the
environment and productivity of the factors of production and quality of products.
Therefore, the productivity of the factors of production (land, capital and labor) are
essential components of sustainability.

Natural resources include exhaustible (oil, coal, minerals, ground water, natural gas),
its supply cannot be increased or replenished, and renewable (wildlife, rivers, trees),
biologically determined and need not be depleted if properly managed. The debate over
who has the right to extract natural resources and how to weigh the well being of current

versus future generations has no immediate answer (Robison and Schmid, 1996).

56

A sustainable agricultural system can indefinitely meet demands for food and fiber at
socially acceptable economic and environmental costs. It implies a temporal dimension —
a sense of intergenerational obligation; a spatial dimension —the world as a whole; a
quantitative dimension —increasing demands for the system’s output; and a normative
dimension —meeting demands over time at economic and environmental acceptable costs
for society. The agricultural system in the firture will depend on the ability to mobilize
the resources —the social capital- necessary to sustain the production increase.

Alternative agriculture integrates innovative practices with conventional farming,
taking advantage of naturally occurring beneficial interactions. It pursues the following
goals: more incorporation of natural resources; reduction in the use of off-farm inputs;
greater productive use of the biological and genetic potential of plant and animal species;
improvement of the match between cropping patterns and the productive potential and
physical limitations of agricultural lands to ensure long-term sustainability of production
levels; profitable and efficient production and conservation of soil, water, energy, and
biological resources. It is an umbrella which includes a spectrum of farming systems,
ranging from organic systems (to use no purchased synthetic chemical inputs) to those
involving the prudent use of pesticides or antibiotics to control specific pests or diseases
(NRC, 1989).

The essential principles associated with sustainable agriculture are implied in the
concept of organic agriculture, which is not possible if it is not sustainable in a broader
sense. If organic farming is farming without chemicals, it can be considered as
sustainable, biological, regenerative, and even biodynamic agriculture, with common

principles and practices, according to the IFOAM standards (Lampkin, 1992).

57

The central ideas referred to as sustainable, alternative, low-input, ecological and
reduced- chemical agriculture, are interchangeable labels. The major goals include:
conservation of natural resources, protection of the environment, enhanced social and
economic well-being of rural communities and improved food quality. How to achieve
these goals with the reduction or elimination of pesticides and fertilizers; sometimes this
strategy is generalized to a decreased use of all purchased inputs (Lockeretz and
Anderson, 1993).

Sustainable management tends to Optimize soil quality. Soil conservation (preventing
soil loss by crop cover, tillage systems, contouring and terracing) has been emphasized,
but this is not enough. The maintenance of soil quality and productivity is more a social,
political, and economic issue than a technical issue. In developed countries the balances
shown an overuse of NPK, in contrast, developing regions have overextraction of
nutrients, soil and genetic erosion, affecting the potential productivity, not always
perceived as the environment costs (Harwood, 1995).

This challenge is a typical case that offer threats and opportunities. The Green
Revolution orientation based on intensive use of inputs considers the biological and
economic productivity in the short-term horizon, but sustainable agriculture based on the
knowledge and rational management of natural resources will represent a long-term

strategy for better and competitively positioning in the world market (Spedding, 1995).

Public Responsibility

Market failures include distortions due to extemalities, caused by spill over effects of

individual production or consumption on others; not compensated by market, with

58

negative (underground water contamination) or positive (free use of research results)
consequences. Public intervention is required in order to balance the generation of
technologies, considering profitability and, at the same time, environmental effects. The
investment in research and development to reduce negative extemalities to environment,
through natural resources stock consumption, which are fi'ee or subevaluated, should
be a priority for the private sector , and to internalize extemalities. (Alston and
Pardey, 1995).

Most of the agricultural policies are designed as though economic agents act
independently and selfishly. Based on this, farmers can be motivated to modify the use
of potentially harmful herbicides, pesticides, and hormone growth stimulators or other
activities that may increase or impose costs on others only by threat of litigation or
income incentives. However, social capital theory suggests other important motives to
which farmers respond, leading to socially desirable behavior without any external threats
or subsidies, leading them to act responsibly about resources without outside intervention
(Robison and Schmid, 1996).

Countries have sought to deal with environmental consequences of economic activity
by regulatory approaches, but this improvement will be increasingly costly. Now, some
developed countries are experimenting with market-like approaches to achieve
environmental improvement. Private firms have better knowledge of what it takes to
reduce their polluting effluents than government regulators, and that provision of market-
like incentives to the firms will induce them to bring that knowledge to bear

(Crosson, 1996).

59

The challenge is to design institutions whereby people and organizations find it
advantageous to act in ways that help achieve overall goals of society (quality and

quantity of food, quality of the environment, and health) (Ruttan, 1996).

2.2 The Framework for Agricultural Research Organizations

The World Bank (1992) reports about the profound changes in the world economy.
and how globalization is affecting international development in different firnctions
(production, marketing, research and development), as well as the economical, social,
environmental implications on agricultural research agenda. Better information and
participation of farmers contribute to improve priority-setting, decision-making and
policy design regarding to sustainability.

The high turbulence environment requires anticipation. It implies to move from the
old style of problem-solving (reactive mode), when real problems have occurred and they
have to be solved, to the new style of anticipating new problems before they happen
(problem avoidance and opportunity identification). That is a proactive approach
(Drucker, 1980; Barker, 1992).

Many systems are suffering a crisis of management with top heavy bureaucracy,
centralization of decision making and lack of incentives for the innovation process,
critical for research. Well articulated research systems require innovative institutional
models that encourage participation and exploiting complementarities. Main elements of
the emerging concept of NARSs are: pluralistic institutional structure, diversification of
funding, private-public sector collaboration, institutional autonomy, involvement of

stakeholders, and new models for technology transfer (Byerlee and Alex, 1998).

60

A successful national agricultural research system requires many resources. First, it must
have the needed experiment station infrastructure (qualified scientists and support staff, field
and laboratory facilities, stable budget). Second, it must have the organization, stnrcture, and
planning mechanisms to use these resources effectively, to benefit stakeholders.
Organization and structure help to create the potential for a NARS to be effective. Once we
have created this potential for effectiveness, we can build on it the additional dimension of
efficiency. We can do this by giving it the management techniques and tools which the
NARS leaders and the professional staff can use in the course of their work. Some national
agricultural research systems, both in the developed and developing countries, are quite
effective, but they are not particularly efficient in the use of their resources. Conversely,
there are NARS which may have an efficient management but fail to achieve much because
of structural weaknesses. Social scientists define organizations as the instruments by which
public policy is implemented. In the context of NARSs, organization may be defined as the
institutional framework and entities created to generate technological support for the
country's agriculture. The relationships and linkages of the different entities and actors and
their reporting and decision making processes as part of the governance mechanisms help to
define the structure of the system (Jain, 1989).

To understand processes of organizational change, organizations should be examined as
social system transformation processes, contrived by people, characterized by inputs,
outputs and functioning in an environment, with structure, technology and tasks,
information and control systems, and culture (Griffin and Moorhead, 1986).

Previous studies show that main ideas for putting together an effective institutional

development strategy are: get stakeholder participation (the most sustainable institutions

61

have great involvement of staff, beneficiaries and other stakeholders; when power is shared,
stakeholders take ownership of undertakings and help design them for their needs, resulting
in improved and prolonged performance) and offer long-term formal education and training;
for technical institutions the formation of a critical mass of trained personnel is essential, it
provides the bedrock for a high-performance organizational culture (Goldsmith, 1991).

Korten and Klaus (1984) pointed out that the dominant logic of the industrial era
created great bureaucracies that organized society into effrcient production units-centrally
controlled and firnctionally defined. They emphasize legal charters, formal authority,
control structures, and budgetary processes. The post —industrial era faces conditions
quite different, and presents potential to enhance human grth (the central concerns of
people-centered development). The self-organizing learning systems of people-centered
development complement the formal structures with a variety of organizational
technologies that are less formal and more rapidly adaptive. Important among them are
informal networks built around people, values, and information flows in response to
particular interests and needs as circumstances dictate.

He considered that this need for change becomes increasingly evident, and criticized
the obsolete vision of the global reality and the nature of human progress, which equates
human progress with growth in the market value of economic output and subordinates
both human and environmental considerations to that goal. The result has been the
extravagant consumption of the world’s resources with little recognition of the social and
environmental costs. The critical development issue for the 19903 is not growth (not
growth-centered vision). It is transformation institutions, technology, values and

behavior consistent with the ecological and social realities, addressing basic needs of the

62

global society (justice, sustainability and inclusiveness). It is a people-centered
development vision that embraces the transformation agenda (Korten, 1990).

Interventions are focused on obvious symptoms, which produce short-term benefit,
but systems thinking, with the reciprocal feedback process required to analyze the loop of
cause-effect. He thinks that because of inadequacies of prevailing ways of managing,
thoughtfirl people are engaged in building new types of organizations - decentralized,
nonhierarchical organizations dedicated to the well-being and growth of employees as
well as to success. Some crafted radical corporate philosophies based on core values of
freedom and responsibility. Others have developed innovative organizational designs.
All shared a commitment and a capacity to innovate that was lacking in the public sector
(Senge, 1990).

Thus, the need for a new science and praxis which considers the problematic
relationships between agriculture and environments is emerging. System thinking
(including system analysis, cybemetics, ecosystem biology) and practices are
fiindamental (trying to design new, productive, stable, equitable, and sustainable agro-
ecosystems). The complexity, dynamics, and chaos of contemporary agriculture, require
movement from classical agricultural research, from the biological and physical sciences
to a new transdisciplinary science of agriculture. Systemic thinking can pose a
considerable threat to the experimental scientist, who controls the environment in the
interest of reduced variation. In farming—systems research, the development of relevant
and viable technology must be grounded in a firll knowledge of the existing farming

system, and that technology should be evaluated not solely in terms of its technical

63

performance but in terms of its conformity to the goals, needs, and socioeconomic
circumstances of the targeted small-farm system as well.

From an ethics perspective, it is generally not recognized that values are not
peripheral to science and technology but constitute their very basis and driving force
(Bawden, 1991).

Consequently, following Kuhn (1970) a paradigm shift in organizational development
management occurred, with a new one emerging: the learning paradigm. It includes a
change in social organization, moving from hierarchies to networks

However, this ideal tendency should be considered as a target in the long horizon. In
the meanwhile, traditional management can be improved by replacing by a proactive,
innovative, and shared leadership based on the mission, and oriented by the vision,
moving toward the direction of a learning organization approach.

“To practice a discipline is to be a lifelong learner. You never arrive; you spend your
life mastering disciplines. You can never say, we are a learning organization, any more
than you can say, I am an enlightened person. The more you learn, the more acutely
aware you become of your ignorance. Thus, a corporation cannot be excellent in the
sense of having arrived at a permanent excellence; it is always in the state of practicing

the disciplines of learning, of becoming better or worse” (Senge, 1990:11).

64

2.2.1 Total Quality Management (TQM)

According to Dean and Evans the term Total Quality Management (TQM) “conveys a
total, company-wide effort that includes all employees, suppliers, and customers, and that
seeks continuously to improve the quality of the products and processes to meet the needs
and expectations of customers. TQM has become the basic business strategy for firms
that aspire to meet the needs of their customers” (1994: 12).

They consider that there are many different approaches to TQM, and although any
one is not ideal, successful programs share these basic attributes: a) customer focus (the
customer, external and internal, is the judge of quality), b) strategic planning and
leadership (long-term strategy), c) continuous improvement (quality must be measured),
and d) empowerment and teamwork (vertical, horizontal and interorganizational
partnerships).

The philosophies of Demming, Juran, and Crosby provide fundamental principles on
which TQM is based (Dean and Evans, 1994). A comprehensive framework for how to
implement TQM within an organization and a means of assessing, the prominent role is
played by awards (the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award), and certification
procedures (ISO 9000 and 14000 registration). There are specific tools for quality
planning (quality firnction deployment, the seven management and planning tools), and
for continuous improvement (the spiral of Demming Cycle, tools for data collection and
analysis, benchmarking).

Blackbum and Rosen, analyzing lessons learned from Baldrige Award-winning
companies, indicate that moving to a TQM culture demands much from an organization,

and aligning human resource practices with quality initiatives requires revolutionary

65

changes in the way organizations train, empower, evaluate, and reward individuals and
teams. They said that “however, the revolution is far for over. Even among organizations
recognized for their TQM achievements, there is still a need for continuous improvement
with respect to human resources practices governing the selection, promotion, and
development of future leaders”(1993 :3).

Spencer (1994) examines TQM in relation to the mechanistic, organismic, and
cultural models of organization in an effort to bridge the gap between TQM practice and
management theory. She suggests that research on TQM practice has potential to
expand the understanding of these management models. “Quality revolution” has been
described as a new way of thinking about management of organizations; a comprehensive
way to improve total organization performance and quality; an alternative to
“management by control” and ultimately a paradigm shift. The new paradigm: customer
—oriented organizations that are organized around processes, run by teams, and conducted
more like ballets. Some corporate managers have invested, others have waited for hard
evidence that it works. She conceptualizes TQM not as a new paradigm, but as a
comprehensive management practice that captures signal from established models of
organization and amplifies them by providing a methodology for use.

TQM is a systematic approach to the practice of management, requiring changes in
organizational processes, strategic priorities, individual beliefs, individual attitudes, and
individual behaviors (mechanistic organizations focusing on performance; productivity,
effectiveness and efficiency are primary concerns). The role and nature of environment
is also important: a mechanistic model employs closed-system assumptions about

organizations, and TQM has an open-system view. TQM recognizes the environment as

66

a vital source of resources and constraints (boundaryless organizations), which has
permeated TQM literature, connotes the more open posture of this perspective. In the
Deming flow diagram customers and suppliers are viewed as part of organizational
processes.

In relation to the role of management, the classical management theorists define
management's role according to principles: managers plan, organize, direct, and
control. However, TQM suggests that managers lead rather than plan, empower rather
than direct, partner rather than organize, and asses rather than control. Their roles are
redefined from directors who give orders to designers who create visions and establish
systems.

Dean and Bowen (1994) analyze principles, practices and techniques in relation to
customer focus, continuous improvements, and teamwork, and remark that TQM is not
simply slogans and tools; it is a set of mutually reinforcing principles, each of which is
supported by a set of practices and techniques, and all of which are ultimately based on
firlfilling customers'needs.

They argue that there is considerable conceptual overlap between TQM and
management theory. Management theory is a multidisciplinary academic field. Perhaps
the fundamental difference between TQM and management theory is in their audiences.
Whereas TQM is aimed at managers, management theory is directed at researchers.
Therefore, the language used in the two literatures differs substantially. The difference in
audiences results in two other differences: a) TQM is inherently cross-firnctional.
(marketing, product design, operations, human resources management), and management

theory as a field is multidisciplinary, but individual theories tend to be discipline; and b)

67

given its mission to improve organizational performance, TQM is almost completely
prescriptive in orientation (i.e. Deming 14 points, are imperative statements),
management theory in contrast is concerned with understanding, not just improving
organizations. Some management theories are prescriptive, others simply describe
relationships among organizational characteristics. When management theory is
prescriptive, its prescriptions tend to be contingent (i.e. sensitive to variation in the
organizational context). The two systems of thought can be compared on the basis of

their area of overlap: recommendations for organizational effectiveness.

2.2.2 Trans-Frame Analysis

Kouzes and Posner (1988) affirm that the old ways of doing things do not work any
more. Leaders do not wait for a disaster. Instead, they build community through shared
values, create consensus, and rely upon those to resolve conflicts; build commitment to
these values and get people to perceive themselves as part of a larger whole and to
become involved in collective action and shared successes. The engine of renewal is
fueled by learning (unleaming and then learning anew). That implies talented people who
embrace the organizational values.

Covey (1989) suggests that to move up on the upward spiral of growth and change,
requires learning, commitment and doing on increasingly higher planes. It requires to be
proactive, taking time regularly for reflecting (“sharpen the saw”).

Organizations are complex, ambiguous and paradoxical (Morgan, 1990), complex,

surprising, deceptive, and ambiguous (Bolman and Deal, 1991).

68

The real challenge is to learn to deal with these characteristics, with our capacity for
critical thinking. The critical challenge is to confront and manage contradiction and
paradox. Managers often favor rational and structural ways of thinking, looking for one
right way to handle their responsibilities, simple answers to organizational dilemmas, and
by people-blaming, blaming the bureaucracy and the quest for power
(Bolman and Deal, 1991).

They emphasize that behind every effort to improve organizations lies a set of
assumptions (theories), about how organizations work and what might make them work
better.

Morgan (1990), and Bolman and Deal (1991), do a prominent organizational analysis,
through frames and metaphors, based on the evolution of the main schools of thought.
These are the ways of understanding and thinking about and then acting toward
organization development. Leaders should apply the most appropriate frame
(s)/metaphor(s) in a flexible manner, through learning different ways of thinking. There are
commonalitites among them. No single way of thinking about organizations is right, best,
or appropriate.

Fear (1994) emphasizes the need for developing analytical capability and trans-frame
thinking (connecting across the frames). The processes of organizational development start
with the current situation and by applying a dynamic, complex, and integrated set of
strategies and tactics, people move from where they are to where they will be. This process
takes courage, experimentation, and requires high levels of trust, but is the way that

organizations and the people begin to feel fundamental change.

69

Busch and Bingen (1994) analyzing the ISNAR's (International Service for National
Agricultural Research) experience in 40 countries over 12 years, suggest that structural
change on its own not necessarily is the best approach for achieving the goal for building
more effective agricultural research organizations. Change is more likely to be effective
if it embraces a multiframe approach that involves a combination of structural, human
resource, and political perspectives. Effective management requires this to be done
through a skillful combination of strategies involving human resources development,
stakeholder participation and institutional reorganization.

ISNAR (1997) in relation to governance and management of institutional change
establishes that NARS are under increasing pressure to respond to stakeholder demands
for accountability, to undergo evaluations according to the standards of the semi-private
sector, and to redefine their roles in the public sector. Under governance, therefore, it
will focus on 3 issues: development of improved mechanisms to allow stakeholders,
particularly women, to influence the research system; design of appropriate feedback
mechanisms to stakeholders; and analysis of effective mechanisms for internal
governance within the research system itself. Alternative governance mechanisms should
ensure that gender issues are addressed. They might include user-based boards of
trustees, competitive grant schemes, and participatory planning approaches (examples of
mechanisms of accountability are auditing, impact assessment, and external program
evaluations). Change, in itself, is a challenge to existing organizations, both public and
private. ISNAR will facilitate institutional change and development. The institutional
strengthening, will be within a CGIAR system-wide initiative on governance and

management of change, particularly directed towards institutional performance, and

70

market orientation.

The proposed multiple-frame model for re-thinking the national agricultural research
organization in this study, drawn from the literature cited (Morgan, 1990; and Bolman
and Deal, 1991), is based on:

- Just capturing the essence of structure, organizational effectiveness and efficiency
of the structural frame/machine metaphor, drawn from the foundational rational systems
theory, relating to organizational goals, roles and technology (structures that best fit
organizational purposes). The driving force of goal orientation, rationality, order and
predictability, and the concept of functions are the important contributions. But, crucial
limitations for agricultural research organizations are: a) it doesn’t address a proactive
leadership, just driven by management and focusing in administration, b) the inward
looking of this frame (close systems), particularly in organizations with the external
environment and context are unstable, uncertain, unpredictable, rapidly changing and
turbulent, requiring decentralization for high levels of adaptability and flexibility to cope,
c) tend to limit rather than mobilize the development of human resources, molding human
resources to mechanistic requirements instead of building strengths and capabilities, (1)
pay little attention to organizational culture, e) segmentation and compartimentalization
are created by mechanistic divisions, vertically and laterally creating lack of
coordination, and f) diffrcult organizations have to be creative, innovative, risk-taking,
adaptive and responsive. As a consequence and reaction of these fundamental
restrictions associated with the structural frame, the emphasis will be on the following
approaches:

- the organismic metaphor/systems frame to give adaptation, to open systems that

71

understand their environment to achieve appropriate organization-environment
relationships, and to improve organizational effectiveness. And, even more, co-
evolving the organization and its environment, creating partnerships and collaboration,
influencing the environment, as organizational ecology.

- the human resource frame, based on the assumption that people are the most
important organizational resource, and looking for a high degrees-of-fit and synergistic
link between human and organizational needs, because both require each other.
Organizational development can be one proactive strategy for addressing this
appropriateness, improving the organization in all dimensions.

- the cybernetic frame/organizational learning, giving the capacity to anticipate
external and internal environment changes (generative rather than adaptive), looking
for continuous improvement by scanning and exchanging information to constantly
adjust (double-loop), the ability for organization learning how to learn (self-governing
behavior).

- Also the influence of other frames have to be taken into account, mainly cultural
(ethos, history, and regular patterns), symbolic (perceptions), psychoanalytic (emotional

and personal dimensions), political (exercise of power and conflicts).

2.3 Collaborative Action Research (CAR)
The definition of CAR for the research protocol in this study was adapted from

literature emphasizing key words and concepts (Chapter IV).

72

2.3.1 Components of Collaborative Action Research

Action-based research presents multiple approaches within one framework.
According to Rapoport, Action Research (AR) emphasizes the science-practice link, and
its collaborative nature, as researchers and clients, together, engage in a mutually
beneficial process, describing the responsibilities and limitations for each of the parties
involved. “AR aims to contribute both to the practical concerns of people in an
immediate problematic situation and to the goals of social science by joint collaboration
within a mutually acceptable ethical framework” (1970:499).

Liu (1992) proposes the combination of the following elements: (a) the convergence
of a desire for change and a research intention; (b) the dual nature of the objective to
solve a problem and develop fundamental knowledge; (c) an ongoing long—term joint
project between researchers and users; and (d) a common ethical framework negotiated
and accepted by all.

Benne et a1 define AR as “an application of scientific methodology in the clarification
and solution of practical problems. It is a process of planned personal and social
change....1t is a process of learning in which attention is given to the quality of
collaboration in planning action and evaluating results” (1964122).

Whyte (1991a) considers AR when some of the people in the organization under
study participate actively with the professional researcher throughout the research process
fi'om the initial design to the final presentation of results and discussion of their action
implications. It is primarily oriented towards helping organizations and community

groups to improve their performances and achieve desired change.

73

All definitions emphasize the researcher’s role in extracting relevant information and
creating knowledge for the solution of practical problems in a planned effort to bring
about the change.

Parts of the process attempted to change a problematic situation include: a) solution to
problems (oriented to problem-solving, practical problems), b) creation of additional
knowledge (by using the scientific method for the generation of knowledge in behavioral
science), and c) learning process (skills are learned in the process of fact-finding,
working to change the situation, and evaluating results).

“An AR project is an on-going, cyclical process of problem identification, data
gathering, feedback to the client group, discussion of the data, action planning, action
taking, and evaluation” (Selener, 1997263).

A collaborative relationship among the participants, the researcher and the people
affected by the change is essential. Both have knowledge and experiences that contribute
to solving problems. The relationship must be grounded in a common view and mutual
agreements to goals.

AR is designed to achieve simultaneously 3 goals: a) problem-solving, b) adding to
the body of scientific knowledge, and c) participant learning.

By the late 1970's two distinct “schools” AR (action research) and PR (participatory
research) had emerged. Although similar in most respects, Brown and Tandon (1983)
differentiate between the ideological basis of these two approaches, and their orientation
to how change is undertaken.

In AR a product of westemized countries, consensual ideologies are dominant in how

problems are defined and in the development strategies selected. All parties are assumed

74

to have a common interest in the research, and collaborative strategies are encouraged
with the understanding that greater efficiency and effectiveness will be of benefit to
everyone. Thus AR relies on legitimate authority and an acceptance of the existing
distribution of resources. PR, on the other hand, comes fiom the traditions of oppressed
people in the Third World countries (mainly Latin America and Asia), assuming that
groups have conflicting interest. Cooperation is not expected, and those opposing the
parties involved in PR will actively resist suggested change. Some similarities are the
reliance on the involvement of parties who will be affected by the research; the
commitment to mobilizing people for their collective decisions and actions that will
enable them to become more aware of themselves and their own realities; the importance
of learning through involvement; the research process itself as an integral part of the
organizational development; and the common values and standards that link researchers
and clients.

Brown (1993) discusses differences in terms of “Northern” vs. “Southern” forms of
PAR. The “Southern” tradition is committed to community transformation through
empowering disenfranchised groups; the “Northern” tradition is concerned with
reforming organizations (and communities) through problem-solving.

The addition of the word “participatory” seems to enhance the active nature of the
process. The PAR label seems to be more commonly accepted as single reference for
what had been called AR or P R. Consequently, in the future, PAR may become the
dominant label with perhaps, as Brown suggests, “Northern” and” Southern” traditions

attached to it (Fear, 1996b).

75

A major convergence between PAR and AR can be noted as far as the principles are
concerned. In both cases the intention is to solve problems and confidence in the ability
of users to produce and analyze information. The research objectives are identical, which
is to take into consideration without exception the social and institutional dimensions of
the project for change as expressed by the users. When applied to agrarian systems, it is
necessary to involve different groups of actors, such as farmers, extensionists, policy-
makers, industrialists, suppliers (F arrington and Martin, 1988).

A third approach is that of Action Science (AS), which deals with organizations
through an AR perspective and is particularly linked to scholar-practitioner action
(Argyris, 1985).

In the area of international development, another rapidly growing body of work is that
of Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), essentially a self-help, AR-driven approach,
minus the last two steps (implementation of the planned action and interactions of

reflection and change) (Chambers, 1993).

2.3.2 Participatory Action Research Modes and Social Learning

AR and PR are modes of inquiry which share many values (common rejection of the
irrelevant aspects of traditional conceptions of social science; the intended outcomes of
research are to produce developmental change as a consequence of the inquiry, and a
view that problem-solving is as important as advancing the knowledge base).

Vandenberg and Fear (1983) view the 2 modes as related but distinct kinds of
inquiries, which they refer to as Utilitarian and Radical. The Utilitarian mode (AR) is

essentially a pragmatic orientation to problem-solving and pursues a strategy of social

76

reform, in contrast with PR strategy, which attempts to get awareness of oppressive and
radical social transformation by confronting these structures.

While AR and PR agree in many aspects of traditional positivism, and share a
comparable set of value assumptions, their political economies/ideologies are very
distinctive. AR is for the research to work with the system; but PR is against it. Action
researchers define the problem in collaboration with the client system, the benefits are
provided to the whole system, and the resources and approval is obtained from system
leaders. AR practitioners are utilitarian reformers and the PR practitioners are radical
reformers (Brown and Tandon, 1983).

The two modes of inquiry can be distinguished as separate types, but both can be
conceivable manifestation of the social learning paradigm. The end to which both
inquiry modes strive is, generally, social change. Their divergence is based mostly on the
different means of achieving the social transformation that each advocates: pragmatic
problem-solving reform for AR and radical problem-solving reform for PR. The
evolution of AR and PR epistemological modes is toward a holistic synthesis, to be

referred to as Participatory Action Research (PAR) (Dickinson, 1988).

2.3.3 Experiences with Action Research

For 50 years since the term AR was coined by Lewin (1946), in his pioneering work
in the field of psychology, with the goal of making the social sciences more relevant to
practical problem-solving, a fair number of projects have been carried out in different
countries involving several disciplines (educational research, sociology and hospitals)

and at the present time, diverse proposals are in existence. The term has grown under a

77

multitude of different labels, reflecting concerns over the twin goals of research
relevancy and social change (participatory approaches).

Lewin proposed learning about social systems by trying to change them through AR.
He indicated the need to consider the principles of action, research, and education, as the
comers of a triangle and core elements in any definition of a scholarly-practitioner.

Since the starting point AR was proposed as cycles of analysis, related to planning,
implementation and evaluation to simultaneously solve problems and generate new
knowledge.

During this same period (World War 11), two other European research teams, using
different methods, reached the same conclusion concerning AR as a research approach
(Liu, 1992).

The Curle team in the UK (Tavistock Clinic) pointed out the role of research in
encouraging users to learn about their capacity to transform aspects considered
unsatisfactory by the organization (Vallerand, 1994).

AR was developed by social scientists and practitioners, concerned with the
generation of scientific knowledge but also with its usefulness in solving practical
problems, closing the gap between theory and practice.

From a researcher’s perspective, the challenge is to define and meet standards of
appropriate rigor without sacrificing relevance, a fundamental dilemma solved by
participatory research (Argyris and Schon, 1989).

The AR approach has a long history of use within organizations to help members
improve their effectiveness and efficiency in achieving their shared goals, and to outreach

and service-providing organizations, in being more responsive to the needs of their client

78

groups. It can be seen as a vehicle for facilitating organizational transformation and its
continued use as a learning organization (Senge, 1990).

Farmer participatory research is widely adopted, aiming to achieve outputs, such as to
develop improved agricultural technologies in response to farmers'needs; the human
resources or the institutional capacity of farmers'groups and collaborating organizations
(F arrington and Nelson, 1997).

Examples of participatory research approaches in the Natural Resources Systems
Programme, UK, can be identified in research projects on crop protection, post-harvest,
plant sciences and livestock production (Martin and Sherington, 1996).

This approach provides adequate collaboration, democratic decision-making, and
effective communication between the participants. Therefore, it is increasingly being
used and recognized as valuable for addressing issues that arise in environmental and
natural resources management, where multiple, strongly-held and opposing points of

view are present (Fear, 1996b).

2.3.4 Characteristics of Action Research in Organizations

A basic feature of AR in organizations is the close relationship between the
generation of knowledge and actions taken to improve organizational performance. AR
is consistent with a collaborative change effort since it involves participants in both
research and change processes (those affected by the problem). AR integrates research
and action in an on—going, participatory process.

Selener (1997) summarizes AR in the following set of components and

characteristics: (1) focuses on practical problems in order to solve them, and in the

79

process, leads to the development of practical knowledge; (2) follows the scientific
method and generates scientific knowledge; (3) generates data which will guide
organizational change; (4) is collaborative and participatory; (5) the researcher is a
change agent who becomes involved in the organization; (6) it is an on—going, cyclical
process in 2 ways; (7) is flexible a process; (8) brings about organizational change; (9)

aims at the development of the whole organizational system.

2.3.5 Relation to Accountability in NARS

This approach may contribute to accountability of NARS, through participation in the
responsibility of the organization to report for the proper use of resources and activities,
and mainly for more and better evidence of the results and impact of agricultural
research. Moreover, it improves decision making through the management cycle.
Strengthening an agricultural research organizations’ accountability to farm and industry
groups generally stimulates more effective PM&E with a direct impact on management
decision making.

Information generated from this methodology tends to be valid, credible and feasible,
supporting organizational transparency and marketing. It is required to satisfy the
relevancy to the client system, while at the same time generating data with sufficient
scientific rigor to also satisfy the research community (Rapoport, 1970).

To answer stakeholders' questions in the planning and evaluation process is critical to
NARS' accountability. Therefore, the first step in the utilization-focused evaluation is

identifying the primary intended users, including their presence as the personal factor.

80

In agriculture, a major concern is to reduce the gap between scientific knowledge
availability and the application by farmers. In the past, researchers did not feel
responsible for the utilization of their findings. Technical quality and methodological
rigor were the primary concerns of researchers. However, implementation of a utility-
focused approach to evaluation requires situational responsiveness, methodological
flexibility, multiple evaluator roles, political sophistication, and substantial doses of
creativity (Patton, 1986).

This approach typically involves case study work, and an important consequence is
that the process evaluation results have high research utilization rates.

Agricultural research is oriented towards farmers and it is important to emphasize that
researchers are not external to the system under study (principle of third party) and that
farmers take part in the research.

Participatory research has the characteristic of being client-driven. This means that
farmer's criteria, indigenous knowledge, and subjective preferences have weight in
decisions about technical innovation. It implies that farmers are actively involved in
decision-making about what kinds of innovations are introduced, according to specific
needs and their own agronomic and socioeconomic situations.

Addressing client needs means that the technology development process itself must be
sufficiently decentralized to meet diverse goals, contrasting with applied agricultural
science, which is primarily concerned with discovering general principles that permit
technology to function in a wide range of circumstances. In applied research,
decentralization requires that the transfer of technology model give way to a highly

interactive relationship between technology designers and clients.

81

Local participation in the research process affects the utilization of research by
potential users by insuring that user interest and needs are taken into consideration;
increasing commitment to what is being undertaken; contributing to self-reliance, and
providing legitimate reasons for conducting the research.

The particular focus of participatory methodologies is the active participation and
decision making of farmers and technology users throughout the technology development
process.

Arguments in favor of this approach are particularly related to accountability:
enabling a better technology fit with the farming system and farmer's constraints;
adjusting technology to particular environmental conditions; allowing more rapid testing,
evaluation and adoption of technology; and promoting a channel for farmers to influence
research priority setting. Also, technology development and assessment takes place more
easily, through building on indigenous technical knowledge and on farmer
experimentation and problem solving, emphasizing research with practical application
and impact.

These are the reasons why the number of NARS applying participatory approaches
involving farmers and technology users in research is increasing

(Martin and Sherington, 1996).

2.3.6 The Rationale for this Approach
As mentioned previously, the rationale for this approach is based on integrating
research and practice in an mutually influential way, by incorporating the end-users in the

knowledge generation process, and not just applying the results. For this reason it can be

82

simply considered as an integrated form of basic and applied research. However,
Fear, (1996a) points out that action research is firndamentally different. It is different in
philosophy and politics, in procedures, and in desired outcomes. Action research and
what is becoming to be known as action science, is a part of an emerging practice-driven
discipline that transcends fields (international development, urban planning, social work,
nursing, rural development, public administration). It applies to any work that seeks to
improve the human condition by linking knowledge with action and, of course,
scholarship with practice. This approach integrates the actors engaged in a research-
practice episode. Scientists bring knowledge of research methods and subject-matter, and
end-users the knowledge of the context and interest in solving the problem, making a
research team, framed in a collaborative relationship. The knowledge is co-generated by
the parties.

Non-professionals are expected to actively participate and learn research skills in this
collaboration with researchers, who are viewed as a medium for change, not as objective
observers, in contrast with the conventional in which some are doers, others are
contemplators.

In this approach, members of the organization are actively engaged in the quest for
information and ideas to guide their firture actions, contrasting with the conventional and
elitist model of pure and applied research, in which they are treated as passive subjects
receiving the results, and researchers serve as professional experts.

In science the greatest conceptual and methodological challenges come from

engagement with the world. Research and action are compatible and need to be together.

83

Any scholarly field has to consider the main stakeholders, its clients and the field
itself. Practitioners try to identify the needs and solve the real world problems and
researchers try to expand the knowledge base. A tighter link can enhance their
effectiveness simultaneously (Fear and Lichty, 1990).

Experience suggests that participatory research as an applied research strategy process
can achieve results of current benefit to the organizations and also can lead to rethinking
how organizations work and learn and on the impact of the process in the firture. The
process begins working with the members of the organization diagnosing the problems
they are currently facing, instead of the conventional review of the literature
(Whyte, 1991a).

This approach is as a reflective process related to double -loop learning which is
concerned with the large picture of understanding about problem-solving, and how to
carry-out successfirl interventions (Argyris and Schon, 1989).

A significant distinction of participatory research is that in carrying-out the
interventions the traditional notion of research subjects is changing, and the research
subjects (client groups), are thought of as knowledgeable and vital contributors, and are
brought into the research/change process as co-investigators By allowing the different
stakeholders to participate and assume ownership of the research/change process, the
problems of relevancy, and interpretation of the findings are dealt within the course of the
intervention through the process of consensual agreement and understanding.

This approach is unique in the attention it gives to the relationship and understanding
between the researcher and user of results. Emphasis is placed on the common values

and standards that are needed to link the two parties. When they are involved throughout

84

all aspects of the research process (by collaboration), a sense of ownership arises, which
creates a certain responsibility for seeing to it that some decision and/or action follows.

People who are actively involved learn to appreciate the value of sound research, and
also benefit from the assurance that salient issues will be included in the study. This
approach also includes the opportunity for stakeholders to participate in various
development roles (beginning with the planning, on going through implementation, and
evaluation phases) (Ryan, 1987).

Farmer participation, on a regular basis in the design and evaluation of technical
innovations in agriculture research and development is now widely promoted as a vital
feature of sustainability.

Farmers participate early on in the design as well as testing and validation of new
technologies, not just at the very late point in time when adoption or rejection occurs, but
starting in the research process when a particular technological theme is chosen and
design features are being determined. NARSs need to facilitate decentralized testing, a
menu of potentially useful technologies by putting farmers in contact with researchers in
the experimental stations, prescreening the options for localized, adaptive testing. By
testing different menus adapted to preference and localities, farmers take the lead in
identifying and transmitting local recommendations.

Participatory research encourages integrative and interdisciplinary social science in an
ongoing learning process involving continual management and change. Participation
improves the quality of the research. It forces a researcher to go through a rigorous
process of checking with firsthand knowledge before reports are written (Greenwood et

aL 1993)

85

The farmers must have the right to participate in setting priorities on the research
projects through their control over resources allocated, tending to develop an impact-
oriented agenda. They also have key roles in evaluating the performance of research
programs to ensure accountability. With rights go responsibilities, which implies that
farmers share in implementation and undertake some cost sharing, which makes
decentralization possible.

Thus, participatory research actively involves farmers in decision-making about
agriculture innovation, requiring decentralized technology development, with institutions
capable of receiving and acting upon feedback from them. Devolution of major
responsibilities to farmers for adaptive testing and for identifying and transmitting local
recommendations is an integral feature of this approach.

Decentralization and devolution also require cost sharing, in order to ensure greater
accountability and responsiveness to farmer’s research agendas (Ashby, 1993).

A related issue is that the effectiveness of the consecutive spirals of action and
reflection is facilitated by each participant's ability to identify problems and
shortcomings, and to take the risk of error, as a vital tool of self-evaluation, critical_for
organizations engaging in the learning process.

This approach can be related to the concept of learning by doing, and as the social
sciences evolved, it increasingly recognized the need to accomplish both real world
relevance and credibility in the scientific community (Fear and Lichty, 1990). It is the
application of the scientific method involving the collaboration and cooperation of
scientists, practitioners, and laypersons. The desired outcomes are solutions to the

immediate problems and a contribution to scientific knowledge and theory. It results in

86

encouraging reorganization, thus increasing the system’s capacity to adapt to change

(sustainability). Based on the above mentioned, this approach represents an alternative

paradigm for the social sciences (Fear, 1996a).

2.3.7 Assumptions of Action Research in Organizations

According to Selener (1997):

1)

2)

AR works within the context of System theory in organizations. These external
forces are inputs, which are used rationally to produce outputs (goods or products
and services), with certain constraints imposed by the environment. To successfully
transform inputs into outputs, organizations depend upon on—going feedback
concerning their performance. AR is a tool used to provide that information in order
to improve the organizational system. Organizations are systems looking for
balance, regularity and equilibrium.

AR is based on humanistic values and designed to firrther the development of human
potential. The unique and complex need of individuals is a characteristic of AR, OD,
and the Hl-IRR framework. Through the application of AR, the workplace can
become positive, exciting, productive, and rewarding environment. AR bases

assumptions on humanistic and democratic values.

3) Epistemological Assumptions

- AR is generally based on a logical positivism position. It is a scientific method of
inquiry based on logical positivism. Consequently, it is used to test hypotheses
and assumptions about organizational factors and to generate knowledge in an

objective way. The research process is rational (logical), empirical (data based),

87

and objective (controlled). Participants implement a plan of action intended to
solve the problem and then evaluate the results to determine whether this has, in

fact, occur.

2.3.8 Role of the Researcher in Action Research

The role of researcher in AR is to assist an organization in problem-posing and
problem-solving processes. AR process involves collaboration and action, it is more
time-consuming than traditional approaches and thus, it requires a long-term commitment
to a project. He should participate in both: the research and the search for an
implementation of solutions (Argyris, 1985).

Action researchers generate useful knowledge and applies scientific knowledge to
action, beyond the limits of academic disciplines to understand practical problems from
an organization’s perspective (Cummings and Mohrman, 1971).

The action researcher is a person who performs many tasks and assumes multiple
roles in the course of the research process: educator, at the beginning introducing
members of the organization to the philosophy and methods of research so that they can
engage in a more meaningful way, generating research questions, designing relevant
methods, and collecting and analyzing data, this role in designing and implementing an
AR helps to establish legitimacy within an organization. He works with clients in
problem identification, selection of alternative actions, and evaluation of outcomes. This
is a collaborative process in which both parties have valuable inputs to share. He

contributes with theoretical knowledge and practical experience, while clients offer

88

practical knowledge and experience of the specific problematic situation. He is acting as

a partner in the process.

2.3.9 Methodological Guidelines for Conducting Action Research

Planned change based on AR models is a cyclical process in which both members and
action researchers collaborate.

Implementation of action is carefully planned, according to results emerging from the
research process.

Major phases according to Selener (1997) are: entry, formation and training of the
AR team, problem definition, data collection, data analysis, data feedback, problem
diagnosis, action planning, action implementation, and evaluation.

The AR process is designed to lead to improvements in the ability of the organization
to accomplish its mission, the quality of working life, the development of the capacity to
learn on their own about the organization, and the generation of a new knowledge,
practical and scientific, applied to bringing about change in the organization.

Improvements in these areas will lead to greater organizational effectiveness.

89

Chapter 111

DESCRIPTION OF THE CONTEXT

In this Chapter the context of this research at three levels is described:
3.1 The main features of Uruguay
3.2 The particular characteristics of the agricultural sector

3.3 The specific case study of INIA

3.1 Features of Uruguay
In order to provide a framework for this study, the principal features of Uruguay are
briefly presented. An overview of the country can be characterized by relevant

geographic, climate, socio-demographic, economic, and political parameters.

3.1.1 Geographic and Climatic Conditions

Uruguay has an area of 176,215 square kilometers (68,037 square miles), being one of
the smallest of the South American countries. It is located in the subtropical zone in the
Western Hemisphere, between 30 and 35 degrees latitude South and 53 and 58 longitude.
It is surrounded by Argentina, Brazil and the Atlantic Ocean. It is divided into 19 States.

The country is characterized by rolling hills, with an average altitude of 117 meters
(3 84 feet) and a highest point of 514 meters (1686 feet) above sea level.

Agricultural land is the principal resource. There are not enough mineral resources to

be economically extracted.

90

The country can be classified as Humid Subtropical and its predominant vegetation is
natural grassland plains, range conditions based on summer perennial grasses (suitable
for crops and livestock production); and herbaceous (natural forest cover just 3%). The
hydrography is reasonable and provides water for animal requirements most of the year.
The entire territory is habitable.

The climate is defined as humid mesothermic, a truly temperate climate with high
sunshine, varying daylight from 10 hours in winter to 14 hours in summer. The
temperature varies between 11° C in winter and 27° in summer, reaching minimum of -
4°C and maximum of 40°C. There is a probability of an average of 30 frost days during
winter, and few strong windy days. The average annual precipitation is 1000 mm in the
South and 1300 mm in the North, with irregular climatic conditions, including rainfall,
and unexpected occasional drought periods. These effects have been remarkable due to

the global climatic condition changes, particularly by the “El Nino” effect.

3.1.2 Socio—demographic Data

While it is a country with a small economy, Uruguay has achieved some high social and
economic indicators.

According to the last survey (INE, 1996) the total population is 3,163,763 (17.8
inhabitants per sq./km), with a population grth of only 0.6% per year, the lowest in
Latin America (92% concentrated in cities). It is an urbanized country. The average age
is 30.9 years. Because of immigration, most of the population is of Spanish and Italian

descendent. Health coverage is broad (89.8%), and mainly private (55.6%)-

91

Education has been substantially improved in the last ten years, with 49.0% completing
Elementary School, 34.5% High School, and 12.6 % University level. But, for the
Economically Active Population, indexes are 11.8%, 24.9%, and 63.3% respectively.

High rates of literacy (96.9%), life expectancy at birth (72.4 years), Gross National
Product (GNP) per capita USS 6,268 and low infant mortality rate (17.5/1000 live births),
explain the Human Development Index (HDI) of 0.883, ranking 37 at the world level,
one of the best in Latin America, according to the United Nations Development Program.
In the gender-related development index, Uruguay is 31 in the ranking (UNDP, 1997).

Other social indicators are home comfort, such as ownership of refiigerators (89.0%),
access to potable water (86.1%), and electric energy supply (98.5 % urban and 59.2 %
rural). The consumption of food per capita is very high (i.e. 67 kg. of meat and 220 it. of
milk per capita, per year). In communications, Uruguay is leading in Latin America:
telephone net digitalization (97%), basic telephone per inhabitant (26%), and increasing

cellular phones per inhabitant (3.2%) (OPP, 1998).

3.1.3 Economic Data

Uruguay's economy firndamentally depends on the agricultural sector, contributing
substantially to export through commodities and agro-industrial products. In the
international market, the prices of these products are decreasing, and as Unrguay is a “price-
taker”, it is being strongly affected. After satisfying the internal needs of the population by
the 193 OS, the increases of production were destined for export. The domestic industry was

supported by government to add value to commodities, to reduce dependence on external

92

trade, and to increase the employment rate. There were increases in the inflation rate and
external debts.

Even though the economy depends mainly on agriculture and livestock farming, only
8% of the people live in rural areas. In the last 15 years, investment away from the
traditional agricultural sector was encouraged and the economy started to grow again.
The tourism sector now represents an increasing proportion of the income.

The increase of agricultural sector productivity is oriented to the international market
because the internal population’s food needs are satisfied. A main priority at the national
level is to increase production and exports as a long-term objective to support economic
growth accompanied by reduction of inflation and improvement of the country’s
competitiveness. The global external exchange trade, in the context of an open economy,
has increased four times since 1995. The Gross National Product (GNP) has increased by
62%, since 1983. Uruguay had 3.29% economic growth from 1935 to 1954, a long
stagnant period of 1.05% for 30 years, from 1955 to 1984, and after that a consolidation
in the economic activity growth of 3.75% (1985/97). This was a period of sustained
growth, with an annual average of 3.6%, and increased the GNP per capita four times in
the last twelve years (BCU, 1992).

The Agricultural Sector participation (AGNP) in the GNP is 12.2%. However,
participation in agro-industrial export is relevant at more than 70% (OPYPA, 1998).

The External Debt has significantly decreased as a percentage of the GNP, from
44.7% in 1985 to 14.6% in 1997. In relation to prices and exchange, a gradual process
reduced inflation, from 73.2 in 1985 to 15.1 in 1997, with consumer prices at 15.2. In

September of 1998, the inflation rate reduced to less than 10%. The unemployment rate

93

has fluctuated, varying around 11.6 in 1997. The general trend to economic stability can
explain increasing investment, promoting and encouraging technological change and

innovation in the systems of production. (OPP, 1998).

3.1.4 Political Context

Uruguay has a long traditional history of democracy, which promotes people’s
participation in decision-making. This institutional interest for such participation is found as
early as in the first Constitution in 1825, and ratified presently in the current Constitution,
approved by vote in 1996. The country has, consequently, a democratic culture.

The Republic Democratic System of Government is based in three representative power
bodies: Legislative, implemented by a General Assembly composed of the Chamber of
Representatives and Senators; Executive, with the President of the Republic, a Vice-
President, and the Cabinet of Ministers; and the Judicial, implemented by the Supreme
Court and the Tribunals and District Courts.

Political parties have been present since the settlement of the Republic. Elections are
each five years, and in addition, there are referenda for specific issues. Even more, in the
Constitution of 1952, which lasted until 1966, the Executive Power was exercised by a
National Council of Government (Consejo Nacional de Gobiemo) formed by nine members
elected directly by the people (six representing the majority party and three, for the
following one). The same system was used in the 19 different States, showing its highest

people participation during that period.

94

After an interruption from 1973 to 1984, political parties formed a consensus to reform
the role of the public sector. This context particularly increased participation of farmers in

agricultural issues, with INIA as an example.

3.1.5 Regional Integration (MERCOSUR)

The MERCOSUR Treaty for the integration of the Common Market of the Southern
Cone, involving Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay, was signed in March 1991.
Implementation of this regional integration process started in January 1995. The purpose
was to develop the economies, expand and harmonize the markets, and become more
efficient and competitive.

MERCOSUR is a tool of open regionalism, reducing collective barriers to external
trade and expanding the group to other countries.

It includes 12 million square kilometers (70% of South America), a population higher
than 200 million, and GDP (Gross Domestic Product) that is fourth in the world (78% of
the GDP of South America), with U$S 4,900 per inhabitant.

Uruguay is in a geographically strategic position, complemented by structural reforms
and policies of openness in the last 20 years, transforming comparative advantages to
competitive advantages. Uruguay appears to be the natural door of the MERCOSUR
since 85% of the GDP of the MERCOSUR is around Uruguay (MRREE, 1997).

In the 70s Uruguay started a process of deep economic liberalization, with a
substantial reduction in trade barriers.

As a consequence of this integration, trade of Uruguay in the region is more dynamic,

particularly with Argentina and Brazil. It was changed from 26.8% in 1985 to 44.8% in

95

1997. Consequently, the recent crisis in Brazil in January of 1999 had an immediate and

major effect on Uruguay and the rest of the MERCOSUR countries.

3.1.6 Quality Culture Context

Currently, the country’s society is increasing a general consensus on the importance of
quality (in products, processes, and management) to develop specialized niches in
international markets.

Uruguay has a National Quality Committee, promoting the efforts in private and public
sectors. This Committee includes the Ministers of Agriculture, Economy, Industry and
Tourism, Technological Laboratory of Uruguay (LATU), Uruguayan Industrial Chamber,
and INIA. It is responsible for the National Quality Award, based on the Malcolm Baldrige
Award, USA (CNC, 1999). An essential objective of the National Quality Program is to
promote tools and mechanisms tending to consolidate quality, supporting the country’s
competitiveness at the international level. The progressive development of quality is part of
the process of social transformation, as a guarantee of higher excellence in social
organization, generating a highly qualified productive context.

It was established an Uruguayan System of Accreditation, Normalization,
Certification, Calibration and Testing (SUANCE) in 1997, after a good experience in this
area of Certification (ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 norms). INIA is actively participating in
this System, and is even supporting its implementation financially.

This national political decision was based on the requirements of international trade,
which will be guided by Quality Norms, in the short term. These refer to the total

characteristics of products, services and processes, related to their capacity to satisfy

96

explicit or implicit needs of all interested sectors (clients, users, employees, owners,
suppliers and the society). This is a consequence of a broader diversification and
knowledge of reliable products. The International Standard Organization (ISO) is the
forum in which the international norms and guides are developed, including quality (ISO
9000) and environment (ISO 14000) management. The norm is the base for the dialog
between clients and suppliers, and is a central tool for penetrating markets. Even though
adoption is voluntary, it has an increasingly strategic importance in facilitating
international trade, moving from a competitive advantage to a requirement, particularly
regarding health, safety and environment. The State has a regulator role in the
organization and in enabling institutions to expedite certification of quality inducing

organizations to set clear quality specifications required for products and services.

3.2 Agricultural Sector

As pointed out in 3.1.3, the Uruguayan economy is based on agricultural production,
which plays a strategic role in the national economy. The Agricultural Sector (AGNP)
contribution to NGP has been about 12% in recent years, and only 12% of the working
population were employed in agricultural exports, still accounted for over 7 0% of total
exports, at different levels of processing through the agro-industrial chains (OPYPA, 1998).
The sector provides almost all the food consumed by the population. Only 5% of food
comes from imports. The industrial sector utilizes agricultural products as 60% of its raw

material. Uruguay has traditionally been an exporter of agricultural products.

97

3.2.1 Main Agricultural Production Systems
In 1996, 9.8% of GNP (USS 18,895,000,000) was related to the agricultural sector

distributed as follows:

Forestry

     

lllll
MW 11 (1‘11;
Livestock “111,1

 

llll
"hill Hill“ ll"
r Horticulture

Figure 3.1 Distribution of the AGNP by the main areas of production in Uruguay.
(OPYPA, 1998).

Approximately 65% of the AGNP come from animals (wool, meats and milk), and the
remainder 35% from crops. Around 90% of the wool, 60% of meat, 30% of milk, 90% of
rice, 80% of barley and citrus are exported. Most of the other crops produced are used
internally. Some sub-sectors have shown significant productivity grth due to technical
change (dairy, rice under irrigation, citrus, protected horticulture, and even livestock
production under grazing conditions). The forestry area has a significant impact, increasing
from 40,000 hectares in 1990 to 200,000 in 1998.

The number of farmers now (55,000) has declined 20% during the last decade,
principally by loss of small-scale farms. Most of the land is privately owned, but leasing

and partnerships also occur.

The use of agricultural land is as follow: livestock (87%), crops (8%), forestry (4%), and

unproductive (1%). More than 80% of the total land is still under natural pasture.

98

Table 3.1 Types of farms, workers and hectares of the main agricultural production
systems in Uruguay.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Production Farm Total Cultivated
Systems Farms Workers Hectares Hectares
1. Extensive beef cattle

and sheep systems 28,800 51,800 11,700,000 16,000
2. Extensive agriculture 5,400 12,300 1,800,000 334,000
3. Dairy 8,200 25,000 1,250,000 128,000
4. Irrigated rice 357 3,200 550,000 67,000
5. Citrus 280 2,000 58,000 18,000
6. Fruits 2,900 7,800 86,000 19,000
7. Horticulture 6,700 13,800 147,000 18,000
8. Others 2,363 24,600 409,000 28,000
Total 55,000 140,500 16,000,000 610,000

 

Source: DIEA 1994

 

Considering production specialization and scale, 126 different systems were identified
and grouped into 11 major categories, as it is shown in Table 3.1 (DIEA, 1994). Mixed beef

cattle and sheep grazing is the main activity (52% of farmers and 74% of the land).

3.2.2 The Role of Technology in Improving Competitiveness

There is a general agreement that technological changes are essential to increase
productivity (yield/ha), as well as quality in management, processes and products, to
improve competitiveness in international markets (Ferreira, 1998).

The development of an effective system of agricultural research, with the capability to
adapt and to generate technological packages suited to the different regions of the country, is

an essential need.

99

The sector is oriented towards agricultural intensification and diversification. It is also
concerned with commodity transformations, adding value through increasingly industrial
participation, mainly for export.

As mentioned in 3.1.5, during the last decade, liberalization policies led to a more open
economy and to a regional integration process, and to emergence of a new mega-market,
the Southern Cone Country Common Market by December 1995 (MERCOSUR). In this
context, competitiveness for agriculture is increasingly required, and the role of
technological change is crucial in national economic growth.

The new economic policies related to the expansion of world trade liberalization,
open markets for international exchange, and the consolidation of regional integration
within MERCOSUR, imply a process of significant adjustments in the agricultural sector,
promoting technological changes at the farm level.

The expanding interest mainly in the deve10ped countries, of final consumers in
“natural products”, with minimum agro-chemicals, hormones and other inputs, represents
an opportunity for Uruguay to produce high quality outputs. An example is meat
production from grasslands, relatively efficient low input, with a rational utilization of the
natural resources.

The State is clearly deregulating and lowering interventionism, setting a framework of
more stable and predictable policies. As a consequence, the country stopped a long stagnant
period (from 1961 to 1984 agriculture grew at 0.1% and the economy at 1.1%), and has
shown a significant recovery during the period from 1985 to 1997 (the annual accumulated

growth rate was of 4.0% for agriculture and 3.6% for the economy). Even more, agriculture

100

had a 5.6% annual grth rate for the last five years (1992/96), helping to move the
economy (4.1%).

Most of the sub-sectors show significant growth. However, the disappearance of
relatively small farmers and the decreasing income of traditional systems of production,
in the context of increasing competitiveness in the external and internal markets due to
the process of open trade, introduced the issue of sustainability and equity of growth.
New probable scenarios, under increasing globalization, require rapid incorporation of
technological change to improve competitiveness of the products.

The traditional agricultural export commodities (meat and wool) were augmented with
milk products, citrus, rice and barley. This development was explained by technological
innovation. Milk (75%), wheat (30%) and rice (20%) increased in productivity (kg/ha); and
even meat (20%), by increasing the area of improved pastures and supplementation.
However, there still are gaps between the national average yields and the technological
knowledge available.

Reconversion processes are going on, due to the reallocation of resources in response to
the opened economy and regional integration. Quality is becoming a main concern in order
to compete in sophisticated international markets. An example is represented by the wines,
which were exposed to an uncertain future. Through a technological innovation of the
genetic material and management of grapes, and a modernization of the industrial sector,
wines are increasingly being exported to foreign markets (European and USA). The area
under forestry production has been expanded during this decade, based on a Law

promoting through incentives the plantations of eucalyptus and pines.

101

The technological paradigm moved from just productivity to sustainability of
agriculture, with concern for quantity, but also quality and environmental impact.
Technological restrictions are related to the need for increases of productivity, reduction
of costs of production, differentiation of products and quality improvement, market
access and better prices, as well as taking into account natural resources preservation.
Leading farmers are using most of the available technology. Plant breeding programs are
addressing the increasing quality levels required by the agro-industrial chain for export,
and the resistance to diseases. Minimum mechanical tillage, mixed cr0pping/fattening
systems, rotational schemes complementing crops and improved pastures (legumes and
grasses), are being developed. Integrated pest management (1PM) and integrated nutrient
management (INM) are also being developed to improve sustainability of production.
New sustainable technology is being tested to prevent soil erosion and degradation,
recycle nutrients, grain, water and soil contamination due mainly to agrochemicals and
waste management.

New technological development requirements related to the era of open markets are also
being examined. In the past, competitive advantages of countries were determined by
natural resources and production factors, but presently, and in the firture, technological
innovation is becoming increasingly important. The development of a country will depend
on the application of adapted knowledge generated by national research and experience at
the farm level, to produce new materials, products, processes, systems or services, or to
improve the existent ones substantially.

For technological progress, continuing feedback among generation, adaptation,

validation, transfer and adoption of innovation, reducing the time cycle, overlapping some

102

phases of the process, will be required. Adaptation of accumulated technical and
organizational knowledge, as well as a learning capacity to keep a continuing and intensive
flow of new knowledge is required. Diffusion becomes a continual innovation process
within farms. Innovations result in an interactive process in which scientific, technological,
sociological and empirical knowledge are involved.

Improvement of sectorial competitiveness is also important. Competitiveness is created
through a continuing innovation process, with a solid scientific-technological base, highly
qualified human resources, and permanent continuous improvement of quality, with fast and
efficient activities. Competitiveness depends on the institutional capacity to supply a
continuing scientific and technological base to make new technology available to farmers,
so they can utilize resources more rationally. (Porter, 1998).

Besides competitiveness, research has to address other objectives, setting priorities on
activities which consider environmental impact, sustainability of production, conserving
natural resources, and developing suitable technologies for subsistence farming, to

contribute to social equity.

3.2.3 The National System of Generation and Transfer of
Agricultural Technology (NSGTAT)

The structure of NSGTAT includes a conglomeration of agents, institutions and
norms of behavior of the society. Looking for the best performance of the system, efforts
focused on sharing clear and comprehensive objectives, coordinating the links in the
agro-industrial chain, and maximizing the potential scientific capacity and available

factors of production.

103

There are two sub-systems: a) technology generation, and b) technology transfer.

a) The sub-system for generation of technology is fundamentally provided by INIA,
representing approximately 90% of the national investment in agricultural research.

There are also two public institutions: (a) the University of the Republic, with a Faculty
of Agronomy and Faculty of Veterinary Medicine (financed by public resources, dedicated
to education and research); and (b) the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries
mainly through a Veterinary Laboratory Research Center (public firnds). A non-profit
private organization, SUL (Uruguayan Wool Secretariat), directed by farmers, is related to
sheep research.

b) In the sub-system of extension and technology transfer, a transformation in the recent
years is moving from the public sector to increasing utilization of private agents. The
present sub-system is multi-institutional, formed by: a public non— governmental
organization (Instituto Plan Agropecuario); a non-profit private organization (SUL);
programs managed by the public sector with components of private technical assistance
(PRONADEGA, PRONAPPA), programs conducted by the public sector with high
participation of private sector (PROVA, PRENADER); agro-industrial organizations of
input suppliers (CONAPROLE, cooperatives related to agriculture and livestock production,
agro-industrial firms in milk, barley, rice, citrus); organizations supporting the development
of the agricultural sector constituted by farmers (F ederacion Uruguaya de Centros
Regionales de Experimentacion Agropecuaria (FUCREA); Rural Societies; institutions of
the public sector participating in technology transfer activities (Instituto Nacional de
Colonizacién, State Governments); and professionals (agronomists and veterinarians)

providing independent technical assistance to farmers.

104

The present government strategy is to transfer the financial responsibility of the
extension activities to the private sector, except for small farmers, particularly related to
horticulture and fiuit production. The progressive tendency is clear, and some of these
organizations are already firnctioning with a Board of Directors including representatives of
the principal farmer associations.

Technical assistance to individual farmers, including farm management, is mainly
through individual advisors. However, group technical assistance is increasing. The
experience with this participative methodology is very positive, using adult learning,
supporting farmers to help them to analyze problems and making decisions to solve them,
exchanging ideas among peers in the groups and the technical advisor (agronomist). This
methodology is a holistic approach, viewing the farm as a whole, encouraging a continuous
education for the farmer to develop as a rural entrepeuner.

The increasing demands from globalization and more competitive markets, require
creativity to develop new strategies for modernization of the NSGTAT, more innovation
capabilities, better articulation to optimize organizational efforts, and to induce additional
complementary resources from the private sector.

International cooperation has been supporting the system of generation and transfer of

technology (MGAP, 1997).

3.2.4 Experimental Units for Validation and Demonstration
INIA has developed an agreement for 20 years with a rural association, the Sociedad
Rural Rio Negro, in an intensive cropping and livestock production region. The work has

produced positive results in terms of validation of promising technologies at commercial

105

level in systems of production, facilitating their transfer, and resulting in effective feedback
to reorientation of analytical plot research.

This pilot experience was expanded in the last couple of years, with the signing of three
agreements with Rural Associations of Tacuarembo, Durazno and Florida, to support

regional development in extensive livestock production, co-working with farmers.

3.2.5 Agra-industrial Chain Approach

In order to compete successfiilly, quality, natural processes and opportunity to supply
products in the market, are new attributes required besides productivity. The production of
differentiated products requires better technologies of processing and packaging,
commercialization modes, promotion, brands, origins, tracebility (vertical integration).

A strong and comprehensive articulation within the production-consumption chain is
needed, integrating research and production of raw material and the industrial sector, and
sensitive to market tendencies.

Infrastructure related to the agro-industrial sector is concentrated in INIA, LATU,
University, SUL (wool), INAC (meat), INAVI (wines), and some private companies (dairy
and other crops).

INIA is improving its relationship to the external environment: with other institutions
also generating knowledge to solve relevant problems to which the system has to give
responses, and with multiple institutions, working in the agricultural and agro-industrial
sector which INIA has to consolidate an effective SNGTTA, to reach the potential of impact

of the activities results.

106

This system has drawn on available international knowledge, incorporating and adapting
it to the specific environment in Uruguay, as well as encouraging the generation of new
processes and products at the national level. To accomplish these goals, higher formal
education in human resources and incentives to innovate are promoted.

INIA’s strength as a research institute will contribute to high quality technology, in
response to real demands in the agro-industrial chain. This will help overcome
technological disadvantage, and also enable participation with the most advanced countries
in the globalized technological revolution in order to compete for accessing dynamic

international markets.

3.2.6 Round Tables
In order to prioritize the demands for research from the continuous agro-industrial
chain, round-tables (Mesas) were created in the last 5 years. They are like self-directed
work groups, to identify relevant vertically integrated problems. They are composed of
specialists from INIA, LATU, Faculty of Agronomy, and specific organizations related to
the continuum, including the industrial sector at different levels and final consumers.
In Uruguay, at this time, there are round tables related to barley for beer (malt factories),
wheat (mills, bread and cookies shops, pasta), rice (mills), forestry (paper factory, wood

processing).

107

3.3 The National Agricultural Research Institute - Instituto Nacional de
Investigacién Agropecuaria (INIA)

The National Agricultural Research Institute is the result of a reorganization of an old

organization.

3.3.1 Institutional Background

The Uruguayan Agricultural Research System was established in 1914, at La Estanzuela,
Colonia, as the Plant Breeding and National Nursery Experiment Station. It was a pioneer
agricultural research organization in South America. This was as a consequence of a
political decision reflected in a national Law in 1911, creating a network of Experiment
Stations through the country (Boerger, 1928).

The first Director, Dr. A. Boerger, a German plant breeder, working with a few other
specialists, made a great impact on the agricultural sector. He imposed leadership based on
a strong discipline, which still has some residual effect on the people working at the
organization.

In 1961 the Institute was reorganized as Agricultural Research Center “Alberto Boerger”
(CIAAB), strengthened by external technical and financial support from governments and
international cooperation, principally IICA, FAO, and USAID. The number of researchers
increased substantially, and post-graduate studies were substantially encouraged in order to
develop a strong human resources and research capacity.

The responsibilities of the Institute expanded in the number of commodities (crops,
pastures, dairy, beef cattle, sheep) and disciplines (plant breeding and protection, soils, agro-
climetology, animal breeding and nutrition, statistics, economics), during the 19605

(Allegri and Grierson, 1982; MGAP, 1967).

108

Even though there was major improvement in this reorganization, enhancing a period of
strong growth in agricultural research capacity, the Center remained as an executive Unit
belonging to the Ministry of Agriculture. There was no formal participation by farmers, and
there were restrictions in human and financial management and fluctuation of annual
budget.

The result of this process was that the effectiveness of research programs and the ability
of the Institute to respond to farmer’s needs were limited.

Subsequently, there was a general consensus that a major re-structuring was required.

3.3.2 The National Law of INIA’s Creation of 1989

In 1987, the Government sent a Proposal to the Congress, considering ideas drafted by
some researchers, farmer organizations, professional associations, and also the scientific
community

The Project was approved by unanimous decision of the Congress, and became national
Law No. 16.065 on October 6, 1989, creating I.N.I.A. (Instituto Nacional de Investigacion
Agropecuaria) as a new organization (Delpiazzo, 1993 :21).

This autonomous new legal entity and institutional framework (INIA) sought to remove
the most important constraints identified in the diagnostics reviewed regarding
agricultural research at that time. These limitations were in the objectives (weak
articulation of research and national development programs, and lack of formal
participation of clients), financial resources (scarce, and variable in amount and timing),
human resources (high tum-over of qualified researchers, and poor management

policies), operational efficiency (discontinuity), administrative norms (rigidity in

109

procedures) and specific areas and services (planning and evaluation, technology transfer,
library) (Delpiazzo, 1993; Diaz, 1985; Rabuffetti, 1989; Stagno and Allegri, 1985).
The scope of action was as an agricultural research organization linked to the existing

network of public and private organizations of extension and technical assistance.

3.3.3 Implementation of INIA

The renewal process was supported in the planning and implementation by specific
studies. Five documents were developed by researchers of CIAAB and specialists of
ISNAR in firndamental areas: organizational structure, human resources, financial resources,
research plans, and procedures (ISNAR, 1990 a, 1990 b, 1990 c, 1990 d, and 1990 e).

At the same time, INIA had the support of a loan granted by the Inter American
Development Bank (IDB) to strengthen the institutional agriculture technological generation
and transfer in Uruguay. This project lNlA/IDB included physical infrastructure, field and

laboratories equipment, post -graduate and short term training (INIA, 1997a) (Figure 3.2).

 

 

251-1133

 

 

 

 

 

 

USS (Million)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Costs

Figure 3.2 IDB/INIA project resource allocation (1989-96).
Source: INIA, Unidad de Administracion y F inanzas (1997)

110

INIA began in May 1990, and the Board immediately transferred the human, physical
and financial resources from the CIAAB to the new organization, after a careful selection
process. In relation to personnel, INIA invited selected people who had the option to accept.

(65% were transferred).

3.3.4 Structural Type of IN IA

INIA is a decentralized institution. It is a public non-govemmental agricultural research
organization; a non-profit organization with many innovative features. It is characterized
by a flexible administration of human, physical and financial resources; delegation of
authority and distribution of power, for organizing, planning, budgeting, and implementing
research activities, deciding on its own management procedures, signing contracts and
agreements with private and public national and international entities. This is because it is a
public enterprise, with co-funding by government, which is authorized to act under private
administrative regulations or as a private organization.

It is linked through its Board of Directors to the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and
Fisheries.

The Law of INIA of 1989, also created an apex body, the Coordinating Council for
Agricultural Technology (Consejo Coordinador de Tecnologia Agropecuaria). It is
composed of the Minister of Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries (President), Minister of
Industries and Energy, Minister of Education and Culture, Dean of Faculty of Agronomy,
Dean of Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, and a representative of the Scientific Community

(Agrupacion Universitaria). It was established to coordinate the efforts in research and

111

technology transfer, advise on research plans and programs and cooperate in the diffusion
of results, articulating INIA to the system.

INIA is the main organization in the agricultural research system. It is assigned to
generate improved production technology to provide support for the national programs of
agricultural development. The University and some public and private organizations are
also contributing in this matter. There are agreements with them and linkages in different
ways. A principal strategic role in this partnership is played by a competitive grant, the
Agriculture Technology Development Funds (Fondo de Promocion de Tecnologia
Agropecuaria, FPTA).

The objectives of the new organization are: a) to promote and to implement agriculture
research activities in order to contribute to sustainable development of the agricultural
sector, b) to advise the Government in relation to technological policy, c) to encourage the
development of a NARS and to maximize the available international scientific and
technological knowledge, d) to formulate and implement agricultural research projects and
to adapt suitable technologies to the country’s needs and the socio-economic conditions of
agricultural production, e) to participate in the development of national scientific and
technological knowledge in the agricultural area through its own activity or in efficient
coordination with other agriculture research and technology transfer programs to be carried
out at public and private level, and f) to articulate an effective transfer of technology,
generated through technical assistance and extension organizations belonging to the public
or private system. The control and inspection responsibilities of agricultural production are

explicitly excluded from INIA’s objectives.

112

3.3.5 Statutory Authority

The Statutory Authority of I.N.I.A. relies on these units:

Board of Directors (Junta Directiva), - INIA’s top authority
National Director (including specialized Units),
Regional Directors (Experiment Stations),
Regional Advisory Councils, and
Working Groups.

0 The Board of Directors

The Board of Directors, is the highest authority of INIA, and its members are
designated by the Government. Recognized background in agricultural technology is
required for them. It is composed of four members:

two government representatives proposed by the Ministry of Agriculture,

Livestock and Fisheries, designated by the President of the country (Uruguay); one of
whom serves as the President of INIA and the Board.

- two representatives appointed by farmers organizations, one proposed by Rural
Association (Asociacion Rural) and Rural Federation (Federacion Rural) and the other
proposed by Agriculture Federated Cooperatives (Cooperativas Agrarias Federadas),
National Commission of Rural Promotion (Comision Nacional de Fomento Rural), and
Uruguayan Federation of Regional Centers of Agriculture Experimentation

(F ederacion Uruguaya de Centros Regionales de Experimentacion Agricola).

These five farmer organizations cover practically all national agriculture, representing
different types of farmers in terms of size, land tenure, commodities, and regions of the
country. Members are elected for three years, and may be renewed just once. This

separates then from the Government officers, who are elected each five years. The process

113

of selecting Board members is one of extensive dialogue and consultation, where the
relevant organizations and persons are consulted until consensus is achieved.

The Board guides the overall Institute, and the firndamental functions are related to
the definition of policies and strategies. It works through weekly meetings, but the
members are also involved in multiple internal and external activities.

0 National Director

The National Director is in charge of implementing and executing the Board of
Directors’ decisions. It is also responsible for the preparation of proposals regarding
internal resources management and external relationships.

The National Direction includes Specialized Units on Planning, Monitoring and
Evaluation, Human Resources, Administration and Finances, and International
Cooperation.

The National Coordinating Committee, created by INIA’s Board of Directors, is a
firnctional mechanism to improve internal coordination. It shares perspectives crossing the
organizational structure, and is composed of the National and Regional Directors,
Supervisor of Areas, Head of Programs, assisting the Head of Specialized Units of National
Direction.

0 Regional Directors

The Regional Directors have administrative responsibilities at the regional level. They
are responsible for implementation of the projects approved by the Board, submitted
through the National Director and based on proposals of Heads of Programs and
Supervisors of Area. At the level of each Experiment Station there are Regional

Coordinating Committees.

114

o The Regional Advisory Councils (RAC)

The Regional Advisory Councils were created in the Law to include stakeholders’
opinions in the agricultural research activities at the regional level.

They were set by the Board in 1990, with the objectives of knowing the demands from
the productive sector in the area of influence of each Experiment Station.

In each Regional Advisory Council, Working Groups related to commodities or
systems of production analyze the principal technological limitations in depth.

The Regional Advisory Councils have the following duties: a) to support and advise
the Regional Director in each Experiment Station, b) to propose bases for establishment of
plans, programs and regional projects, c) to promote local actions related to technology
generation and transfer, (1) to look for additional resources to accomplish the regional
research activities, and e) to do any other function recommended by the National Board

There are five Regional Advisory Councils, each with up to 15 members, who are local
representatives of agricultural organizations in the region.

They work as “antennas” prospecting technological demands and at the same time, they
inform others, assuring resonance of INIA’s decisions and activities to sector needs,
facilitating communication flow in both directions.

Regional Advisory Councils at each Experiment Station provide an important forum for
regular exchange of views and close contacts between farmers and INIA staff. They are the
places where actual exchanges and participation occur.

0 The Working Groups (WG)
INIA Board created these WGs for each National Program in order to strengthen the

role of farmers in guiding research.

115

In these WGs the INIA staff and farmer representatives discuss research plans and
results for specific commodities and systems of production. They represent a very usefirl
mechanism to formally incorporate inputs for research planning, monitoring and
evaluation, and they have been generally successful.

There are 25 Working Groups, functioning at the level of the related Experiment
Station, composed of about 10 permanent members, recognized farmers and professionals
in the commodities and regions. But meetings are open to all farmers interested in
attending.

The different WGs are attended by representatives of various target groups (farmers,
extensionists, industrial sector, policymakers).

Each Working Group is represented in the Regional Advisory Council, facilitating the
communication among them. Meeting minutes are recorded from each session of the

Working Group, as well as, the Regional Advisory Council.

3.3.6 Physical Resources of Experiment Stations

INIA operations are based in five Experiment Stations located in different agro-
ecological and socio-economic regions of the country. A total of over 5,000 hectares is
devoted to experimental purposes.

The Experiment Stations are specialized according to the most economically important
commodities produced in the respective region. Each is in at different stage of
development, depending on when they were created, but these differences were minimized

by the execution of INIA/IDB Project.

116

Each Experiment Station has a Regional Director, Regional Coordinating Committee,
Regional Advisory Council, and Working Groups, demonstrating the firnctional and
operative decentralization. The distance between the Experiment Stations ranges from 150
to 300 km. A research network covers the country, in order to include specific differences
at regional level, including Experimental and Demonstration Units, with commercial farm
sizes, and Experiment Areas, to carry out plot research. INIA's Board may establish,

expand or modify them.

3.3.7 Financial Resources

In the new INIA, the farmers are involved in the institutional management and
contributing to the budget with central firnds.

INIA has 5 potential sources of funding: a) a 0.4% assessment on farmer sales, b) an
amount at least equal to the assessment provided by the Government, 0) self—generated
funds (including royalties and joint ventures with private enterprises) d) voluntary

contributions by farmers and other organizations, and e) grants and development loans.

INIA's budget is established by the Law, and farmers contribute significantly to it,
matched by equal government firnds. Farmers pay a levy of 0.4% of the value of most
agricultural outputs at the first point of sale, which is earmarked for INIA. The government
must allocate at least the same amount to this fund. The budget is complemented by
income from sale of products and specialized services. The organization can generate

resources for its own use.

INIA's core funds are considered to be the total collected from the assessment on

farmers, plus the matching funds provided by the Government. Most of sales products in

117

Uruguay have a value-added-tax. In the case of the agricultural sector, all the products from
farms have a direct-sales-tax (IMEBA), which includes an additional 0.4% for the use of
INIA. The Public Treasury (Direccion General Impositiva) collects this tax for transfer to
INIA. The amount collected is then matched by the Government providing its matching
fiinds for INIA.

INIA's budget from these sources is determined once a year, and the budget allocation is
made by quarters. INIA does not have to spend all of its allocation in one financial year, but
it may carry over any surpluses into other years.

By this diversified way, INIA has been able to increase its financial sustainability
significantly, and foster a demand-driven research system whereby farmers participate in
priority setting and impact monitoring.

The structure of INIA’s incomes is shown in Figure 3.3 (INIA, 1998a).

Agreements 9% 41% Government

Royalties 1% ,.

Products & 9% _
Sales

40% Farmers

 

Figure 3.3 Sources of the income structure (%) of INIA, year 1998.
Source: INIA, Unidad de Administracion y Finanzas (1998)

In the budget, the contribution of the farmers is significant, contributing a similar

amount with government, and representing 40% of the total. It is increasing the income

118

from sales of products and specialized services, and the royalties from new cultivars
released, under protection of INIA.

INIA has a balance between income and expenditures. The distribution of the budget
is carefully monitored to prevent excesses.

In relation to resources allocation, the distribution of the expenditures looks
reasonable. The proportion assigned on human resources is controlled, in such a way that

the availability of operating costs can satisfy the execution of activities.

3.3.8 Human Resources

INIA operates independently of the civil service regulations for human resources
management, researchers and staff support.

Personnel management is regulated by a Statute, approved in 1990 by the Board, after
discussing the main ideas with the personnel in the organization. It identifies three
personnel groups: professionals (University level), specialized (technicians), and support
staff (technical and administrative). The Statute also specifies recruitment, selection, and
placement; work dedication; compensation policies; performance appraisal system;
promotions and transfers; training; environmental conditions of workplace; travels; and
disciplinary norms.

INIA personnel currently includes 137 researchers among 524 in the total staff. The
ratio of researchers to support staff is around 1 to 3.

Regarding gender, 22% of the researchers are women, and two of them are project
leaders (biotechnology and forestry). Although the proportion of women is increasing in

recent years the percentage is lower in the total staff.

119

INIA had prioritized human resources essentially in the quality of searches (the new
young researchers recruited are top ranking students) and in the highest level of post-
graduate formation.

Most of the researchers have post-graduate degrees (58 % M.Sc., and 23% Ph.D.,
including those now studying, mainly in USA Universities). There are significant efforts to
strengthen training at all levels of the staff, including formal and informal studies on a

continuous education basis.

3.3.9 The Programmatic / Operative Matrix Model
In order to ensure a coherent integration of the working plans in the Experiment
Stations, a matrix model was developed. The Areas and Programs (commodities and
systems of production) conduct activities in the relevant Experiment Stations (regions).
The complexity in agricultural research requires effective coordination among the
disciplines and support services. The leaders responsible for the research program, the
Supervisors of Areas and Heads of Programs, are committed to promoting coordination

among the disciplines within the projects.

The Areas and Programs established at the national level are shown in Table 3.2.

120

Table 3.2 Areas and Programs of INIA

 

Area Program

 

Animal Production Beef Cattle
Dairy
Sheep and Goats
Farm (small) Animals
Pastures

Horticulture Horticulture
F ruiticulture
Citrus

Crop Production Winter Crops

Summer Crops

Rice

Evaluation of Cultivars
Forestry Forestry

 

 

 

3.3.10 Priority Setting Process

The research objectives aim at developing suitable technological alternatives within
systems of production at the farm level.

Carefirl attention is given to the relationship between priority setting and the
organization's mission, process for resource allocation, program evaluation, budgeting and
staff development.

In the priority setting process there is a formal scheme in which the more relevant
problems are discussed. The extemally-funded projects have to be in line with the
institutional priorities, considering the internal effects that could unbalance the set priorities.

A Medium Term Operative Plan (MT OP) for five years, was established in 1992 (INIA,
1993). The Board defined priorities and procedures for its formulation, and then evaluated

and approved proposed projects.

121

In the case of INIA, the farmer participation at different levels is a positive consequence
derived from the reorganization process. Farmers are participating in INIA through the
National Board of Directors, Regional Advisory Councils and Working Groups. Their
demands can be directly met, and they also benefit from new technology. There are formal
mechanisms for producers participation in the diagnosis, prioritization and planning of
research activities.

Farmers are principally involved in the policy planning process, which is a central issue
in agricultural research. This is related to institutional control. There is wide participation in
problem identification and analysis. The concept of decentralization, strengthening local
involvement, was also incorporated in the institution. Farmers are also taking responsibility
to contribute to the budget.

INIA adopted basic guidelines from the Government in order to prioritize the generation
of technology in defined areas, according to the volume of production, socio-economic
importance, and the prospects to increase exports. At that time, these areas were: extensive
livestock production (beef cattle and sheep mainly grazing natural pastures), horticulture
(vegetables and fiuits for exports), and forestry.

Based on this process, institutional strength was encouraged through human resources
training and developing policy, as well as important investment in buildings and equipment,
which fit the new priorities.

In general terms, the technology INIA offered helped to improve the agriculture sector
export capacity under conditions of sustainability and more profitable systems of
production. It was a programmatic approach articulated with the governmental policies of

development, participation of farmers, and advances from the scientific-technological world.

122

New advanced technology, like biotechnology and information, were incorporated
supporting research programs and services.
Technology transfer integrated with the experimental activities in the research projects is

considered essential to achieve institutional aims.

3.3.11 The Planning System

Planning, as a basic tool to effectively accomplish institutional aims is the process that
is designed to set up coherent objectives and priorities for INIA activities, to determine the
appropriate means to attain these objectives, and to utilize those means effectively.

The planning system has provided tools to develop INIA's goals, priorities and
strategies. Even though the Law gives INTA autonomy to administer its human, financial

and physical resources, planning is required to maximize the limited resources available.

INIA has adopted three hierarchic levels, decreasing in complexity, defined as follows:
a) Plan (institutional coherence of programs, according to the objectives and strategies
established by INIA), b) Program (several projects designed to solve a more general
problem), and c) Project (the basic unit of programming; all the organized activities to

address a specific problem, including research and/or diffusion activities).

A dynamic cycling process, with continuous feedback is developing (planning -
implementation - monitoring — evaluation).

Evaluation of the projects were conducted by scientific committees including external
and internal professionals of recognized specialization in cereal and oil crops, vegetables,
fiuits, pastures, beef cattle, dairy, sheep and goats. The budget and the personnel required

for the projects were also taken into account in the assessment.

123

The recommendations of these evaluation scientific committees were submitted to a
critical review and reordering of the proposed projects by Supervisors of Areas and Heads
of Programs.

The Board discussed and defined research priorities and resource allocation among the
Programs for the Medium Term Plan.

This input came back to the scientific leaders to give a national, interdisciplinary and
coherent conception in relation to the principal technological constraints identified in the
different lines of work.

The Projects were presented and approved by the RACs at the level of Experiment

Stations.

3.3.12 Resource Allocation

The current distribution of researcher's time allocations by Areas, Programs, and
Experiment Stations, according to a time allocation survey, are shown in the following
Figures 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6. There is a high congruency between the resource allocation in
agricultural research and the production value of the commodities. There was a high
correlation (r2= 0.89) between research time allocation distribution and total resources

distribution. (INIA, 1998 d ).

124

Forestry
0
6 /o Crops
Hortm'utlculture /_ 26%
29/0

k

    
   
 
 
 
     

Animal
Production

Figure 3.4 Distribution of the researcher time allocation by Areas

Cultiv ar Evaluatiolk Beef oCattle
Rice 5% / 8 A,
10°/o Da-
Winter Cereals / 401/?

0
Summer Cereals 6 A,

and Oil Crops
4%

Sheep and Goats
7%

Forestry
6% Pastures
Citrus _/ 20V“
8% L Farm Animals

Fruticulture Horticulture l %
9°/o 12%:

Figure 3.5 Distribution of the researcher time allocation by Programs

Trelnta y Tre-
13% La Enanzueln
34%

Tacunrembo

//////////////////

 

Lu Brujru
24%

Figure 3.6 Distribution of the researcher time allocation by Experiment Stations

125

3.3.13 The Agricultural Technology Development Fund (F.P.T.A.)

The Agricultural Technology Development Fund (FPTA), was established in the 18th
Article of the Law 16.065 of creation of INIA, which set a target amount of 10% of core
firnds devoted to this Fund. The purpose is to finance special projects of technological
research for the agricultural sector from other research organizations. This Agricultural
Technology Development Fund was for contract research, and was an INIA priority. The
Board had decided that this Fund should be complementary to INIA's work, used to form
and strengthen strategic alliances, and that it should not alter the normal programming of
research within INIA.

Thus, this Fund is financing projects, executed by other institutions or persons
outside INTA, in response to topics requested by the National Programs of INIA, as a
complement to INIA’s plans. The Board also has allowed having some flexibility, with
10% as an average. INIA analyzed and learned from these experiences. It has proven to
be of help to establish strategic alliances, to coordinate the research efforts, and to
achieve a multiplier to its own research efforts. INIA can rapidly contract to address

specific problems, without waiting to build up its own physical and human capacity.

3.3.14 International Cooperation

INIA is involved in intensive international development cooperation with technical and
financial assistance agencies, which can be classified as: the United Nations group (UNDP,
FAO, UNESCO, IICA), the national government organizations (CIDA, IRDC, JICA, GTZ,
SIDA, ODA, USAID), the, national and state public research organizations (Agriculture

Victoria Australia, Ag-Research New Zealand, INIA Spain, EMBRAPA Brazil, INTA

126

Argentina, INIA Chile), the international development banks (WB, IFAD, IDB), and
international agricultural research organizations within CGIAR (CIMMYT, CIP, CIAT,
IRRI, ISNAR, IFPRI).

INIA is actively participating in regional and international networks, mainly within the
Cooperative Program for the Development of Agricultural Technology in Southern Cone
(PROCISUR), a joint effort of the NARIs of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and
Uruguay, and HCA, institutionalizing a permanent system of interchange of knowledge,
cooperation, and integration of actions, related to the generation and transfer of agricultural
and agro-industrial technology.

There is an increasing number of agreements with centers of excellence, mainly with

universities and international centers of CGIAR (INTA, 1998b).

127

Chapter IV

METHODOLOGY

4.1 Operationalization of the Framework

This Chapter is a description and analysis of the research methodology and a
description of the process which was used for two purposes: a) to integrate a new
framework, for agricultural research organizations, and b) to operationalize Collaborative
Action Research (CAR) for organizational development.

It summarizes what, where, when, how and why this work has been done.

4.2 Overview of Research Methodology

This research effort involved a case study of a National Agricultural Research

Organization, INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigacion Agropecuaria) in Uruguay.

INIA is formulating and implementing an ongoing long-term collaborative process in

order to transform itself into a sustainable development organization.

This research describes and analyzes an intervention in INIA's organizational
development process during the period October 1995 to December 1998. It includes a
description of the scholar integration approach, the practical intervention, and analytical
research about an organizational transformation. The author was engaged as both a

scholar and as practitioner.

128

It is a narrative methodology, telling the story of what has been done, how the
framework model was developed, and how it was applied in evolving an organizational
transformation.

The type of research applied in this study, according to its orientation based on CAR,
functions as a link between basic and applied research, focusing on practical problems
that have theoretical relevance.

The goal is to generate highly useable knowledge and, at the same time, enhance the
scholarly knowledge base. It involves the co-generation of knowledge by three partners:
(1) the researcher (theoretical framework, scholarly perspective), (2) the internal staff,
and (3) the external stakeholders (practical context, reality perspective). All three
collaborate in the design and implementation of the research, and consequently in
incorporating the results into the organizational development.

In this research the purpose is to link a proposed model for organizational
development with the reality of a NARS, through a logical-empirical process of
conducting research and connecting conceptualization with measurements.

The research is conducted and described step-by-step, systematically, in a logical
way, explaining “what”, “where”, “when” and particularly “how” things have been done.
The decision criteria adopted during this process are essential, justifying “why”.

The methodology for this case study is based on the fi'amework of a learning
organization. Collaborative Action Research is the research strategy of this study (a
synthesis of key features of collaborative, action and participatory research modes). It is

a participatory action-oriented research effort involving the participation of INIA staff

129

members working in collaboration with other stakeholders (members of the RACs and
WGs), and the author.

The participative research effort was designed to help INIA staff and stakeholders
gain critical understanding of the organization and their potential roles in facilitating the
development of a sustainable organization.

The staff and stakeholders were oriented to these new concepts during the evaluation,
planning and experiential learning processes, and this acculturalization is a long term on-
going process.

For this research, a better understanding of the learning paradigm as a promising
alternative for developing management in a NARS is essential.

The purpose of this descriptive research is to: assess evidence of an emergent learning
paradigm in the practice of the case studied (INIA); to identify those forces that constrain
or facilitate learning processes in the organization; and to explore the extent to which the
CAR methodology applied is a usefirl framework for diagnosis and improving NARS
(Chapter I).

The case study approach is particularly relevant for the description of an emergent
paradigm and its manifestations in the practice of organizational development. The
principles and techniques of the CAR methodology are used in this study to analyze the
various components of the learning model, and the organizational factors that are limiting
or reinforcing learning processes.

This should contribute to the efforts of INIA to carry out firture improved research
activities, in terms of performance (effectiveness and efficiency), quality (methodological

rigor), and relevance, for technological agriculture transformation is the practical side of

130

the research. At the same time, CAR methodology should contribute to the theory, as
well as the practice, of learning organization approach (feed-back).
A holistic approach is applied to learn about the case by considering all relevant aspects

of the whole.

4.2.1 The Research Protocol: Collaborative Action Research (CAR)

For this study, the definition of CAR was adapted from literature: an inquiry process
in social research conducted with Collaborative efforts through participation of the
researcher, external stakeholders and internal staff of the organization, for the common
purpose of generating new knowledge (Research). It is an attempt to respond to the felt
needs and concerns of the client group (INIA, the organization) through practical
problem-solving activities as well as identifying and anticipating future opportunities;
and it simultaneously attempts to promote processes of social transformation (Action)
whose goals and methods are defined by the parameters of a mutually acceptable ethical
framework.

This form of scholarship provides a tool for organizational change and development,
seeking more effective, efficient, and relevant action, through a consensus-oriented

approach.

Collaborative Action Research is an appropriate label for this approach in order to

emphasize the key words and concepts included in this methodology (Chapter II).

131

4.2.2 Case Study Research

The CAR approach typically involves case study work, and an important consequence
is that the process evaluation results have high research utilization rates. Yin defines a
case study as “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon, and
the context are not clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of evidence are
used” (1991:23 ).

He considers a case study approach as an appropriate selection when a “how” or
“why” question is being asked about a contemporary set of events over which the
investigator has little or no control. In a case study, the researcher draws from the
knowledge base as a means of putting the case into perspective. Then, at the conclusion
of the study, the researcher seeks to move to the knowledge base given the lesson

learned/knowledge gained from the case study.

4.2.3 Data Collection

This study involved collaboration between the author (the researcher), the staff
belonging to INIA, and the stakeholders related to the organization. This research team,
collectively, was involved in designing the research methodology, as well as in collecting
and analyzing the data. A series of planned activities and interactions with the people
involved provided the primary data sources for this study. Secondary data available to
the organization were also collected and analyzed.

In order to implement a valid, reliable, credible and feasible methodology, the following
five data collection techniques were utilized: a) surveys of various types (different

populations and different criteria of inclusion), b) different instruments (formal

132

questionnaires, carefirlly planned and administrated and informal interviews), c) participant -
observations and group discussion, (1) direct observation, and e) secondary data, review of
documents to corroborate and augment evidence (archival statistics, organizational

records, letters, agendas, speeches, rrrinutes, membership lists).

4.2.4 Data Analysis

This strategy depends on analyses based on valid description. This type of study,
because it is social science research related to attitude, interest and opinion of the
involved people, is often characterized by the use of qualitative data. However, this
particular study also utilized the quantification of responses through the measurement of
variables. This method allows description and analysis by scaling statistical indicators
for variables. The structured instruments were designed with a common scale ranging
from 1 to 7, in which 1 was very low, 2 (low), 3 (moderately low), 4 (neutral), 5
(moderately high), 6 (high), and 7 was identified as very high. A statistical package was
applied for the analysis of the data.

Written forms were filled out anonymously by the respondents, in order to protect their
confidentiality as participating partners. This was however, a limitation in analyzing the
data. Even though some characteristics of the profile were included (researcher or support
staff, age, sex, regional distribution), more information was not available, because of the
attempt to prevent the identification of the individuals. Rich information is lost, and the
potential cross-analysis association may be misleading.

Gathering, analyzing and interpreting data was used to explain the meaning of the

evidence found. This study also used institutional documents, such as speeches, letters,

133

internal memoranda and reports, which were important to corroborate and augment

evidence fi'om other multiple sources. Findings were also compared with literature.

4.2.5 Researcher's Potential Subjectivity

The fact that the researcher has been a member of the organization for a long time is
indeed an advantage for knowing the organization in detail. However, personal bias is a
potential factor that was recognized and minimized.

To assist in problem-posing, promoting the inquiry process, and in solving
organizational problems, a proactive and critical partner participating in the research and
in the implementation of solutions is required, to share learning with all levels in the
organization.

Singleton et a1 (1992) describes this as intersubjective testability, which makes it
possible to achieve. Scientists need to describe their research in detail and to outline their
logic and methods of observation so that other scientists may duplicate their
investigation; and so scientists can decide whether a researcher’s subjectivity has
distorted the conclusions. No one scientist engaged in this process is infallible, and each
has his/her own peculiar intellectual or emotional bias.

Research methods are not mechanically applied in practice. Hoover and Donovan.
describe science as the art of reality testing and research as a very creative process. That
creativity takes place within the parameters of an accepted set of rules for knowing
(science). This method draws upon our creative energies during the research process, and
requires sharing with others the steps and rationale associated with that creative act.

Science only informs us about reality. Science begins and also ends in uncertainty. They

134

reflect “do we understand our values, and the influence of those values on our work in
science?.The image of the value-free scientist is a myth....An interesting approach to
these problems, and to some of the limitations of social scientific methodology, has been
developed (termed participatory action research)” (1995: 150).

Fear (1996a), however, points out that although is impossible for any human being to
be objective about any aspect of reality, we can try to be objective as we engage in, and
describe, the research process.

In the case of this particular research at INIA, in order to overcome and mitigate this
personal bias, this participatory methodology tries to include a diversity of people with
different perspectives and approaches. This participation was included in all stages of this

study.

4.3 Description of the Process

INIA is engaging in a general process of transformation. The approach in this
descriptive case study is to present collaborative activities developed in the planned
cyclical process, chronologically and analytically. The purpose was to foster effective
and sustainable organizational development.

The procedure for this participatory research featured three major aspects, as follows:

1) Collaborative Evaluation Process (CEP). This started in October 1995 (first step).
It was an ex - post evaluation of the last five year (1992-1996) research plan (known
as the Medium Term Operative Plan (MT OP)). This was a main input to the next

plan (second step).

135

2) Collaborative Strategic Planning Process (C SPP). This was a proactive approach
formulated for the future five years (1997-2001), called the Medium Term Indicative
Plan (MTIP). This was accompanied by the development of a continuous
improvement process (third step).

3) Learning Process Teamwork for Continuous Improvement (LPTCI). This was
launched because of a felt need at the institutional level in order to support a cultural
transformation to achieve sustainable organizational development.

The interaction of these three aspects of the process is depicted in Figure 4.1, below:

  

 

Continuous

 

LPTC I

 

.......................................................

 

...............................
.....-\. ..........................................

 

CEP

r-‘rrmrrrmn'rr'rfl'r'mmr climax-77.41 -- Mr“

Figure 4.1 Description of the interrelated processes involved in INIA intervention.

136

4.3.1 Collaborative Evaluation Process (CEP)

The Collaborative Evaluation Process (CEP) was the initial step. The relationships with
the other processes involved were shown in Figure 4.1.

It involved those researchers who were responsible for the Projects to be evaluated as
well as stakeholders in the evaluation process. This is a way of enhancing the capacity for
evaluation and for institutional learning by including researchers (self-evaluation), internal
scientist leaders and managers, external scientists, and stakeholders in the evaluation process
along with the author.

The chronological sequence and timing of the CEP followed the evaluation of the past
Medium Term Operative Plan (MTOP) executed during the period 1992 — 1996. It
started by a Board decision. Because of the lack of institutional background in this
matter, a methodological development was required. The CEP gave essential information
about current and past institutional performance, fi’om the assessment of programmatic

and functional organizational issues.

Starting Evaluation

In order to introduce monitoring and evaluation into the institution, the Board
assigned the author to present a proposal.

In October 1995, the general conceptual approach, and a tentative design was
submitted to INIA by the author. It recommended a collaborative and participative

scheme, with the involvement of internal staff and external stakeholders.

137

Methodological Development
A proposal was developed based on the Context Input Process Product (CIPP) model
(Chapter H).

Then, the proposal was discussed at the following meetings:

1) National Coordination Committee meeting
The proposal was presented and discussed at the Experiment Station INTA Las
Brujas. Since it was received positively, there was a recommendation to formulate it
in depth.

2) Board of Directors meeting
The reviewed proposal was presented, discussed and finally approved by the Board,
in general terms.

3) Experiment Station meetings
The proposed methodology and its implementation were presented and discussed
with researchers and staff at the Experiment Stations level. The evaluation scheme,

incorporating internal suggestions, was finally accepted.

Internal Workshop

An activity was organized in collaboration with Inter-American Institute for
Agricultural Cooperation (I.I.C.A.), with the participation of Regional Directors,
Supervisors of Areas and Head of Programs at the Experiment Station INIA La
Estanzuela, during three days (December 1995). In this workshop a new Project profile,
including Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation aspects, was developed for the fixture

Medium Term Plan.

138

Progress Reports on Projects

The actual implementation started through a Memorandum dated February 28, 1996
to researchers explaining the initial stage of the evaluation of the Projects included in the
past (Medium Term Operative Plan), and also related to the Document of Reference to be
considered on the Internal Environment Analysis of the Thematic Areas of the Medium
Term Indicative Plan.

The responsible researchers and the leaders of INIA were requested to make a
summary progress report for each Project. Then, these were consolidated at the Thematic
Unit and Program level, including the following content: i) initial situation (background
and justification), ii) objectives (general and specifics), iii) expected results (related to
specific objectives), iv) obtained results (indicators and means of verifications), and v)

perspectives (finishing, reforrnulating or continuing).

Key Issues Addressed in the Research Evaluation

Issues were identified in a collaborative process involving all of the people mentioned
above and the author.

These issues included analysis of the research activity (objectives, assumptions,
processes, expected outputs, and possible weak points).

The most important sources of the issues were discussions with interested parties and an
assessment of the purpose of the evaluation. Several individual and small groups meetings
with samples of respondents were conducted and recorded by the author, in order to identify

the most important issues.

139

The evaluation of INIA technical research activities was based on the performance of the

projects executed in the last plan, including the following criteria:
1) Eflectiveness

This was defined as to what extent the expected outputs have been achieved.
2) Efliciency

This was defined as effectiveness in relation to costs (resources assigned). The human
resources cost estimated was based on percentage of time allocation.

Performance is mainly focused on the use of resources, and the timeliness of the activity
(effectiveness and efficiency). It may be measured through monitoring and on-going
evaluation, but in this case it was in the ex — post evaluation. The results are used to
improve management procedures and increase productivity.

In the evaluation of effectiveness and efficiency the researcher responsible for self-
evaluation, the Experiment Stations Directors, and the leaders of Areas and Programs have
participated.

3) Scientific Quality

This was defined as adherence to accepted standards of scientific work and precision. In
other words, to what extent did the methodology applied guarantee the accomplishment of
planned results. Scientific rigor deals with such matters as validity and reliability of
findings and is related to experienced scientific expertise, determined by the research leaders
of Areas and Programs, and external specialists, scientific peers and expert reviews. At the
beginning of the MTOP, in 1991 there was an External Scientific-Technological Committee
that reviewed all the proposals, and made recommendations that were included to be

accomplished with methodological requirements.

140

4) Relevance

INIA research is mission-oriented. It attempts to remove constraints and provide
opportunities for national development. The expected results were considered according to
their relative importance in relation to present needs, identified opportunities, and their
potential impact in the long term. This involves relating each level of research objectives to
the next higher level of objectives (project to program to area and to institutional level),
which ultimately reflects national development objectives. This process relates to the results
from the last Plan as well as the problems identified for focus in the next Strategic Plan.

The participants included in this aspect of the process were stakeholders who were
involved in the Working Groups and Regional Advisory Committees

This ex - post evaluation is related to the results obtained and their potential impact, but
impact assessment (broad effects and to the long term of the research) is not included at this
time because it requires adoption of the generated results, after at least five years (Figure
4.1).
5) Programmatic Consistency

This was defined as the extent to which there was coherence between the project’s
expected results and the higher levels of institutional objectives.

The proritization of strategic interventions during the planning process was based on
the ends. Activities designed to achieve those ends required means. And, in turn, these
ends became means to higher levels of ends, and finally contributed, through synergism,

to the institutional mission and vision (Figure 4.2).

141

“Then, when evaluating, and seeking to understand the on-going development of the
activities, the means/ends hierarchy is a highly useful tool” (Axinn and

Axinn, 1998:136).

 

 

VISION
MISSION
5 m
5,
5
e? 5“} PROGRAMS
S /

 

 

 

 

Figure 4.2 The means/ends hierarchies approach applied to INIA planning,
monitoring and evaluation process.

Indicators, Expected Results and Mecms of Verification
Indicators were used to identify the evidence (explicit, measurable and objectively
verified) of the expected results to demonstrate the level accomplished in each criteria. The

expected results refer to the anticipated level in each technical-programmatic goal and the

advance of knowledge.

142

Means of Verification refers to the specification of the source of data and the way in
which each indicator is measured and verified. Sources refer to the type of respondents

selected for this particular information.

Procedure for the Evaluation Process

Formal questionnaires were distributed through the National and Regional Directors at
the level of Experiment Stations to leaders, researchers and stakeholders, to be completed by
the different respondents from their perspectives. Each was asked to provide the required
information, indicating the scale number, which according to their understanding was the
best representation or meaning on the aspects selected.

The procedure for the evaluation was a follows:

1) Sample Test Forms

Different forms were used, according to the purpose and the respondents. Structured
forms related to the evaluation of each Project were drafted and checked with researchers
before they were distributed. The same was done with the forms for the leaders and for

stakeholders in RACs and WGS.

2) Self — Evaluation by Researchers

The forms to evaluate the Projects by the responsible researchers, were then
distributed and filled in by the responsible researchers (Appendix A).

The information collected from the researchers responsible for projects was about: stage
of execution of the project; initiative of problem identification (demand); contributions
during the programming process; modifications; accomplishment of the technical-

programmatic goals (effectiveness); numbers of researchers involved; estimation of total

143

time allocated by the researchers; total operative resources allocated; relation between
effectiveness and the cost (efficiency); number of disciplines and commodities involved
(multidisciplinary integration); factors limiting the execution of the proposed experimental
activities (quality improvement); effective mechanisms for diffusion of the Project results;
resources to be incremented to improve the Project; effects on the preservation of the
natural resources; type of products generated; orientation of the objectives; determination of
immediate users; present and fiiture needs relationships; scope of the results; stage of the
process of technological development; convenience of finishing, reforrnulating or
continuing without modifications the Project (prospective analysis); and comments and

suggestions on criteria for Monitoring and Evaluating to be introduced in the next Planning.

3) Evaluation by Leaders

Another type of form, including some Similar and other different questions, was
distributed to the Technical Leaders, Heads of Programs and Supervisors of Areas
(Appendix B).

They assigned values to the following topics: expected results (outcomes or products)
accomplished considering all the activities of the Project globally (effectiveness); effective
mechanisms for diffusion of the Project results; relation between effectiveness and their
costs (efficiency); size of the Project in terms of resources allocated taking into account the
planned objectives; contribution of the results obtained by the Project to accomplish the
objectives of the Thematic Area, as well as at the level of Thematic Area to the Program
(programmatic consistency); relative importance within the Program given to the Project;
grade of fit and internal structural consistency for the general methodology, data

recollection, statistical analysis, conclusions, strategy, and scientific-technical information

144

reviewed (scientific quality); quality value of the publications produced; grade of
extrapolation of the results; determination of immediate users; stage of maturity of the
process of technological development curve; convenience of finishing, reformulating or
continuing the Project without modifications (prospective analysis); and comments and

suggestions on criteria for Monitoring and Evaluating to be introduced in the next Planning.

4) Experiment Stations F eed-back and Analysis

The completed forms were collected and processed by the author, and then the data
were presented and discussed in Specific half-day meetings with the participation of all
researchers at each one of the five Experiment Stations.

5) Relevance as seen by Regional Advisory Committees and Working Groups.

Specific forms were developed for the RACS and WGS to complete, both regarding
the relevance of the obtained results and evaluating the process (Appendix C).

The Members of the Regional Advisory Committees and Working Groups provided
information on: previous knowledge of the available information; usefiilness of the
obtained results and contribution to improve the decision making related to the principal
systems of production for whom they are aimed or directed (relevance); effects of the
application of the obtained results on productivity per hectare, capital or labor, quality of
products, natural resources and environment; effective mechanisms for diffusion of the
Project results; potential adoption of the technology or information; limitations or
restrictions to adopt the available information or technology generated; magnitude of the
adjustment to introduce the technology in the system of production; presentation of the

information; convenience of finishing, reformulating or continuing the Project without

145

modifications; and comments and suggestions on criteria for Monitoring and Evaluating to

be introduced in the next Planning.

6) Final Document

All this information was consolidated at the level of Thematic Units and Programs, as
an internal progress report, along with the processed data collected from the
questionnaires. This information was a main input to the firture Strategic Planning.

A summary of collaborative evaluation process, adapted from CIPP model

(Stufflebeam,l982; ISNAR, 1995) is presented in Figure 4.3.

 

CONTEXT IMPACT
\ /
PROCESS
INPUTS PRODUCTS

’ irlA "

 

seifwmm RegomMoMorh
Leadersormea's,i'audzréragr. 1333 :gggéegI:1:222;lifworkingr;mapszitgz‘isa»

  

Effectiveness ~
& Efficiency Meth°d°l°glcal Rigor Relevance

Figure 4.3 Collaborative Evaluation Process (CEP) developed ex-post evaluation of
the Medium Term Operative Plan (MT OP). Adapted from CIPP model.

146

4.3.2 Collaborative Strategic Planning Process (CSPP)

This CSPP strategic planning process was a second aspect described in this process
carried out by INIA. The relationships with the other processes involved were shown in
Figure 4.1. This process becomes a comprehensive guide for organizational efforts to
become more effective.

The internalization within INIA of the strategic thinking concept, based on carefirl
analysis, is designed to identify and describe the values, mission, vision, and stakeholders,
and to determine opportunities and threats (external environment) as well as strengths and
weakness (internal environment) (Bryson, 1988).

This becomes an organization’s way to define who we are, what, why and how we are
doing; where and how we want to be in the firture.

The collaborative Strategic Planning Process is a proactive, mission-based and vision-
driven approach, which starts by scanning the environmental reality, and is vital to move to
a sensitive stakeholder, committed staff and improved teamwork organization.

It is crucial to make decisions based on new future prospects and to avoid considering
the firture as just a prolongation of the past “to do more of the same”. Stakeholder demands,
organizational culture and resource availability are essential factors.

In brief, INIA’s aim was to program activities and allocate resources in response to
real demands from the agricultural sector, discovering and identifying relevant problems,
and to contribute to solve them. The methodology adopted by INIA, based on strategic
planning, is to identify the strategic issues and formulate strategies to manage them, as a
frame of reference for the prioritization of problems to be tackled in the near fisture (Dias

et al., 1995).

147

The chronological sequence and timing of the CSPP followed the steps described

below. These are being implemented and executed during the period 1997 — 2001.

Starting Planning
There was an initial agreement for planning. INIA decided, in October 1995, to be
engaged in a Medium Term Indicative Plan for the next 5 years, based on a Collaborative

and Participatory Strategic methodology.

Orientation

A general presentation and discussion (sensitization and introduction) on the
characteristics of strategic planning methodology, the timetable required and ways of
participating in the process of developing the MTH’, was held at the levels of the Board,
the National Coordination Committee and at the Experiment Station. In this stage,
experts who had been in charge of this experience in EMBRAPA, the national
agricultural research organization in Brazil, were involved in this sensitization.

The members of the National Coordination Committee, in agreement with the Board,
identified responsibilities to start preparing drafts of documents to be presented and
discussed with the internal staff and stakeholders, clearly communicating the institutional

mandate.

External Environment Analysis

The assessment of the external environment was used to identify what opportunities

and threats will affect the firture alternative scenarios.

148

A team lead by two Regional Directors was in charge of this analysis, with the
objectives of identifying the relevant components of the INIA ecosystem, and selecting their
important factors. These factors and the implications for INIA were described and analyzed
in terms of opportunities and threats. Based on that, they were assigned to construct
alternative scenarios, and present proposals of objectives to assure the accomplishment of
INIA's mission, given the transformations estimated in each scenario. Then, the following

four stages were implemented:

1) Ecosystem Description
At the beginning of the external environment analysis, a tentative ecosystem description
of INIA was designed. It was discussed internally and externally, considering international

and national, public and private forces that are operating and influencing INIA capacity.

2) Critical Factor Identification
By assessing the external environment, the key external critical factors related to INIA
were identified. These were evaluated in order to identify elements that can contribute as

opportunities, and elements that may be threats to the organization.

3) Relevant Critical Factor Analysis
Then, relevant critical factors for INTA were described and analyzed, in relation to the
promoted and restricted forces determining the tendency of the factor, the alternative

possible firture evolution and the implication to INIA, in terms of opportunities and threats.

4) Construction of Alternative Future Scenarios
Based on these previous stages, the alternative firture scenarios were analyzed from the

perspective of relevant economic, social, political, cultural and technological factors.

149

The drafts of the external environment analysis documents were discussed in a two-day
workshop, with all the members of the Board, the National Coordination Committee, and
the Specialized Units of the National Direction participating. That took place at INIA Las

Brujas, during the first week of December 1995.

Mission and Vision Proposals

Taking into account the organizational mandate, established law which created INIA,
and the constructed future scenarios, proposals for drafting mission and vision statements
were developed at the level of the Board and National Coordination Committee. However,
it was a collective exercise for everybody involved in INIA These first proposals were
inputs to be discussed and shared with internal staff and stakeholders at the level of
Experiment Stations, in December 1995.

The mission statement considered the INIA purpose, the reason to exist, the social
importance, the philosophy and core values that will guide organizational decision, key
stakeholder needs, how to anticipate to respond to problems, and the uniqueness.

The vision statement for the fiiture considered INIA’s hopes for positive outcomes of
optimal effectiveness, a better firture, transmitting enthusiasm, and looking for

excellence.

Internal Environment Analysis
Simultaneously, an assessment of the Internal Environment started. This was an
institutional diagnosis, attempting to identify strengths and weakness in relation to the

mission and vision. The analysis considered inputs, processes and products that take

150

advantage of opportunities and protect from threats (strengths) or vice versa (weakness).
This information will be firndamental to formulate the strategy of action based on
strengths and to overcome weaknesses.

It also considered INIA performance, organizational and firnctional conditions, and the
changes needed to achieve the Stated objectives.

The INIA internal environment analysis included three phases: 1) programmatic
(characterizing past and current performance), 2) organizational and fiinctional (identifying
strengths and weaknesses), and 3) prognostic performance assessment (needs based on the
new mission, objectives and policies).

The Collaborative Evaluation Process (CEP), which analyzed the Medium Term
Operative Plan (1992-1996), became a key element in the process, supplying the required
information about programmatic analysis (Figure 4.1).

A team led by two Area Supervisors was responsible for promoting an open discussion
of the INIA internal environment analysis, focused on organizational and firnctional issues.
It used a survey, with a questionnaire form. A list of factors were valued as very weak
(ww), weak (w), strong (5), and very strong (55), by all the researchers of INIA.

A draft summarizing the most relevant elements of the institutional internal environment
became an input for a broad reflective analysis. Because this analysis was done by internal
INIA personnel, it was different from the external diagnostic, in order to overcome potential
problems of objectivity and credibility in the final proposal, there was a broad open internal

discussion.

151

Workshop F ollow-up

All members of the Board, the National Coordination Committee, and the Specialized
Units of the National Direction participated in a workshop reviewing the strategic planning,
advancing the discussion at the level of INIA, and setting the stages for the fiJture. It took

place at INIA Las Brujas, in February 1996.

Internal Validation of External and Internal Environment Analysis,
Mission and Vision Proposals

An internal validation was conducted through daily workshops at the level of all of the
researchers in each one of the 5 Experiment Stations, during February, March and April
1996. These included presentation and discussion of all of the components of the external

and internal environment analysis, and the mission and vision proposals (Appendix D).

External Validation of External and Internal Environment Analysis,
Mission and Vision Proposals

The drafts of documents of the external and internal environment analysis, and the
proposal for mission and vision, were reviewed externally at two levels: a) Leaders of the
Rural Associations represented on the Board of INIA (“Mandantes”), and policy-makers
representing the Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries (in a workshop in May
1996), and b) Regional Advisory Committees at the Experiment Stations level (in
workshops during July 1996).

In all meetings the drafts were presented and the external participants (stakeholders)
were encouraged to discuss, to make critical analysis of the proposals and to introduce

suggestions to improve them. After everyone had read the drafts of documents, critical

152

comments and proposed modifications were presented in small groups. Suggestions related

to all aspects of this work were organized into a timetable (Appendix E).

Prospective Studies by Areas

In the previous steps, the impact of global change on the agricultural sector and its
influence on the institutional objectives was analyzed using the methodology of strategic
planning. After that, strategic studies were developed on the four Areas of action for INIA.
Future scenarios of the agricultural sector for each of them were constructed. These
provided a specific framework for the research projects proposed for execution in the five
- year period 1997-2001.

Terms of reference were developed with the support of expertise fi'om INTA the
national agricultural research organization in Argentina, in order to conduct strategic
analysis of the possible fixture scenarios at the level of the principal national agriculture
system of production. These included the stages of production, transformation, and
consumption (agro-industrial chain), as well as their implications for the areas of research of
INIA

Based on that, four Specialized Technical Committees were established. They were
composed of three internal researchers (leaders of Areas and Programs), one of them as
Coordinator, and three external professional consultants, selected by the Board (a technical
/biologist with expertise in the area, an economist with experience on production systems,
and a policy maker related to market tendencies of the production systems.

They started working on strategic studies for main areas of research, in April 1996.

These prospective studies by Areas (Animal Production, Cereal and Oil Crops, Fruit-

153

Horticulture, and Forestry), were drafted, taking into account all earlier documents, and

then they were internally and externally validated, and the strategic issues were identified.

a) Internal Validation of the Prospective Studies by Areas

The Specialized Technical Committees presented and discussed the draft documents
with all researchers of INIA, and some technicians. Over 150 staff members attended
meetings at the 5 Experiment Stations, in June and July 1996. Their suggestions were

included in the draft documents that followed.

b) External Validation of the Prospective Studies by Areas

The draft documents were presented and discussed with the Regional Advisory Councils
and expanded Working Groups, in groups, in 14 meetings, attended by 350 stakeholders at
the 5 Experiment Stations, in July and August 1996.

Their suggestions and even new technological demands were incorporated into the
draft documents. These began to form a tentative list of demands and definition of

priorities.

c) Identification of the Strategic Issues

After considering all the internal and external suggestions, the Strategic Studies were
reviewed, adjusted, and summarized by the Specialized Technical Committees, and became
the framework for setting priorities for future Planning.

Strategic issues facing INIA were identified as a consequence of taking into account the

opportunities and threats (external environment) and strengths and weaknesses (internal

154

environment), as well as reaffrrmation of the mission and vision, along this logical flow: a)
which are the more probable scenarios for each principal Area of INIA (Animal
Production, Cereal and Oil Crops, Fruit-Horticulture, and Forestry)?, b) which are the
strategic areas of intervention (demand opportunities)?, c) which are the topics of
strategic intervention of higher potential impact for INIA action (technological
limitations within each demand opportunity)?, d) what projects address the principal

technological limitations appropriately?, and e) which are the priority projects?

Topics of Priori tization

The prioritization of areas and themes of impact was discussed between the Board
members with the Supervisors of each Area, and with representatives of the Rural
Associations represented in INIA’s Board and the Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture, and
Fisheries.

Then the topics of prioritization were discussed among researchers and the Regional
Advisory Committees and expanded Working Groups, in small groups, in 10 meetings, with

200 stakeholders attending, at the 5 Experiment Stations, in November and December, 1996.

Drafting Pre-Proposals
According to the prioritization of areas and themes, the researchers formed
multidisciplinary teams, drafted proposals in relation to the main problems and opportunities

identified, selecting mega-projects which have high potential impact.

155

Relevance of Pre-Proposals

The ideas for Projects drafted by these teams were submitted for discussion and
adjustment to the Regional Advisory Councils and expanded Working Groups, at the 5
Experiment Stations, in March 1997 (Appendix F).

The list of ideas for projects, resulting from previous discussion, was subjected to a
process of prioritization by scoring, open for adding new ideas if needed. These were

utilized in formulating the program.

Formulating Policies and Strategies

As an organizational response, strategies dealing with the selected issues were
developed. Policies, projects, actions and resource allocations were discussed with
stakeholders and confirmed by the Board, consistent with the shared mission and vision
adopted, to define what to do and why in the firture. A set of proposals of mega-projects and

a work plan were established for implementation in the fiJture.

Final Review and Approval by Board of Directors

The new Board of Directors, in regular meetings and exchanges of ideas with the
National and Regional Directors, Leaders and researchers, reviewed the proposals of mega-
projects, at the 5 Experiment Stations, from May to September 1997. Feedback was given
to the leaders and researchers.

Finally, the Board of Directors approved the Medium Term Indicative Plan for the next

5 years, with adjustments, in December 1997.

156

Communication and F eed-back

The final approved Medium Term Indicative Plan was communicated to all internal and
external participants in the process, and then it was evaluated by the participants
(Appendix G).

Project ideas were documented as profiles of projects, with detailed objectives, teams to
be involved, expected results and budgets required.

The implementation of these projects will be done with a philosophy of enhancing the
organizational capacity through strategic alliances with national and international centers of
excellence (universities and international centers of CGIAR).

This MTIP constitutes the framework for all the research Projects at the Institutional
level. The FPTA, competitive funds with other institutions, and the IDB H Project, as
strategic projects are within the priorities defined in the MTIP. Other competitive firnds in

the INIA/[DB H Project will be determined, based on the FPTA procedure.

4.3.3 Learning Process Teamwork for Continuous Improvement (LPTCI)

In order to establish and develop teamwork for continuous improvement, the basic
idea was to constitute groups with the purpose of promoting understanding of prioritized
problems, issues, and opportunities in organizational development, identified and
prioritized by themselves.

These groups were considered very usefiil for constructive dialogue and efficient
instruments for staff and institutional development. They helped individuals learn how to
participate and lead others in collaborative, enriching ways, progressing and developing

as a whole group, to achieve profound understanding and a broad systemic perspective.

157

This methodology is based on the premise that improvement comes from the

application of knowledge. This idea is presented in the Deming cycle. This cycle is

never ending (Deming, 1986).

A

-Plln
-Do
-Check

 

>OU"

 

-Act

Figure 4.4 The spiral of continuous improvement. Adapted from Deming cycle.

Starting the Process

In order to complement the Operationalization of the Planning, Monitoring and
Evaluation (PM&E) Process, INIA decided to implement the Learning Process Teamwork
for Continuous Improvement. The goal was to strengthen the conectiveness of the process,

and to accomplish a sustainable and effective cultural transformation in the organization.

158

Orientation

INIA has developed an engaging introduction to this methodology through
presentations by consultants in managerial workshops at the Board, high management
and Experimental Station level, during the last decade.

The purpose was to internalize this approach through an overview of principles,
practices and techniques involved in total quality management, as well as discussing the
viability of applying it to organizational development in the case of INIA.

After this introductory period, and taking into account the experience working with
these participatory planning and evaluation processes, the INTA Board of Directors

decided to sponsor this process, through a Board Resolution dated 28/6/96.

Training of Upper Management

The top level of the organization received training on the process in order to have a
strong commitment to leadership.

The Board, National and Regional Directors, Supervisors of Areas, Heads of
Programs and Specialized Units participated in a Workshop, conducted by members of
the National Organization for Quality and Excellence (AUECE), at INIA headquarters,
once a week, on Monday morning (three hours), during three months (June, July and
August, 1996).

The content of the Workshop to achieve improved understanding included philosophy
and tools, according to the National Quality Award: client satisfaction, communication,

teamwork, processes measurements, quality assessment (ISO 9000 and ISO 14000),

159

leadership, mission and vision, problem solving, and action plan for continuous

improvement. AS an outcome of this seminar a tentative master plan was established.

The Guide Team

A multidisciplinary guide team, composed of a Director of the Board, a lawyer and a
sociologist from the Human Resource Unit, a Regional Director (MBA), and the author,
as coordinator, was established.

This team defined a tentative program of short term activities, expanding ideas
through training, and appointing improvement teams in each Experiment Station
(Facilitator Groups) in order to accomplish the implementation of this Plan. The
members of this team have and will promote the inquiry process be proactive in
supporting solving problems. Also, they set a long term target of obtaining cultural
transformation and sustainable organizational development, adhering to learning

organization principles, by the end of this Medium Term Indicative Plan.

Experiment Station Meetings

The President of the Board, the National Director, the Manager of AUECE, and the
Guide Team traveled among the Experiment Stations to meet with all the staff from
November through December 1996.

The purpose of this group was to communicate the main ideas directly and clearly,
and at the same time to learn about the expectations of the staff. The program of those
meetings was based on a presentation of the continuous improvement process. Then

opinions on the most important ideas, the main obstacles, and restrictions that might

160

interfere with the implementation of the process, emerging doubts, and related
suggestions, were sought through a structured form completed individually
(Appendix H).

After that, the personnel worked in groups (approximately 10 persons in each group),
to discuss the individual answers, looking for a collaborative way to face the future
actions.

These data were collected and analyzed by the Guide Team.

Reaflirmation by the Board

In May 1, 1997, the members of the Board finished their period established by the
INIA Law of creation (3 years plus an optional renewal), and were replaced by new
members.

In the inauguration speech, on May 2 of 1997, the new President reinforced the key
importance of the continuous improvement process, recommending continuing in depth

in this process.

Facilitator Teams

Each Experiment Station nominated a facilitator team, formed by the Regional
Director, two researchers and three support staff (different levels of personnel). Members
participated voluntarily, with a positive attitude to collaborate to create an environment of
mutual cooperation and understanding.

Because of the concern about how they relate to the formal structure and hierarchies,

a Director of the Board opened the meetings at different Experiment Station.

161

The training for these facilitator teams was as follows:

1) Training Facilitator Teams.

After the teams were established, they participated in an intensive workshop/seminar,
with the same content as the first one addressed to the high management, conducted by
the guide team with the purpose of bringing all individuals to the same level, during the
third week of July 1997.

The program was based on presentations by the members of the Guide Team on the
following topics: organizational models, communication, teamwork, problem solving,
leadership and organizational change, Quality National Award and ISO 9000 and 14000
norms, mission and vision, and master plan for continuous improvement process.

At the end of the seminar/workshop, the participants, working in groups and based on
the established concepts, defined statements of shared missions with the guide and
facilitator teams.

This training was evaluated using specific instruments (Appendix I), which sought
feedback information about the contribution of the principal ideas presented and
discussed; the implementation of the continuous improvement process; and other
suggestions, as well as comments on the organization, program and thematic content,
methodology utilized, and level of participation.

After the meeting, the President of the Board sent a letter to each member of the
Facilitator Teams to reinforce the importance of the continuous improvement process.

2) Training Trainers

An intensive course for the facilitator teams about adult learning, was conducted with

the support by a psychologist expert, during the first week of September 1997.

162

The program was developed for adult education (new educational models, techniques
for adult learning, use of audio visuals, case studies, role-play); teamwork management
(types and roles); total quality and paradigm shift; client satisfaction; work processes
(importance of measurements and tools to improve it); firture training of Improvement
Teams (specific materials elaborated for them); plan of actions to improve teams.

At the end, a strategy for future actions was discussed, and modules were assigned to
different Experiment Station teams. They then drafted specific materials adapted to
INIA.

3) Preparation of Documents

Based on general publications, each Experiment Station was in charge of developing
Specific materials on quality themes, adapted to the particular institutional mission and
culture for internal training. This internal intermediate document, containing material
adapted for training the rest of personnel, was distributed among them.

Training

Training is implemented through regular participation at different levels of the
personnel at courses, seminars, and workshops, organized by other institutions in the
country or in the region, related to these areas of continuous improvement. Some of them

are in the same Experiment Stations.

Teamwork Groups for Continuous Improvement
Work groups were developed in relation to local emergent problems from each
Experiment Stations survey, as well as institutional problems identified and prioritized at

the national level (from the internal environmental analysis during the strategic planning).

163

Each facilitator team identified specific problems on which to work. Some of them also
work on certain institutional problems at the national level.

At the regional level problems were prioritized. Among these were receptionists and
internal communications (INIA National Direction—headquarters), toxicity from
agrochemical products manipulation (INTA La Estanzuela and INIA Salto Grande),
moving to new facilities (INIA Treinta y Tres), lunch facilities and firnctioning (INIA
Tacuarembo), arrangements for staff transportation to work (INTA Las Brujas).

At the institutional national level the main problems prioritized were human resource
reformulation, administrative procedures, communication (information network), and

working safety.

Human Resource Teamwork

“Human resources” was identified as the most important problem to be considered
under this methodology. It involved all staff, at different times, and was time
consuming. A group, including personnel from different Experiment Stations and
categories (researchers, technicians, administrative, labs and field workers), worked with
the support of a consultant, to develop a draft proposal. After discussion with the
National Coordination Committee, and the Board, a tentative proposal was introduced
through the facilitator teams in a two-day workshop at INIA La Estanzuela. Then it was
disseminated to the rest of the staff, so that feedback could be received. This was a clear
sign that the most important issue in INIA at that moment was enriched through this
methodology. It was guided by a structured questionnaire to obtain a systematization of

the ideas and contributions. Even though the people were at an early stage of the process,

164

and taking considerable challenge (risk of failing for lack of enough training), the Board
gave strong support. There was a consensus among the teams to take on this

responsibility. This process was evaluated by specific forms (Appendix J).

Other Teamwork

Other teamwork involved staff leading to change in problem areas to improve the
quality of working life. In this way, INIA is creating the proper environment to learn
about the organization in order to identify and to solve problems. This methodology of
teamwork was applied to a new institutional challenge participating in the important
annual national Agro-Industrial Active Exposition.

Administrative issues, the information technology system, communication and

working safety, were also other institutional topics addressed by teamwork.

4.3.4 Results/Processes Interconnection

The interconnected components of the process were summarized in this Chapter.

In the next Chapter, findings from the Operationalization of this process will be
presented, along with some results and other consequences drawn as lessons fiom this
organizational experience.

These outcomes will be the evidence found in this study in order to demonstrate to
what extent this process is being usefirl for INTA firture performance, and is contributing
to developing an organizational change toward a sustainable cultural and financial

transformation.

165

Chapter V

FINDINGS

This Chapter describes the most relevant findings obtained. These are most closely
related to the objectives of this study, providing evidence directed to the research questions,
and were drawn. from the three major components of the process as described in Chapter IV.

As a consequence of the process described in earlier Chapters, the collaborative effort
to formulate and implement a new approach resulted in firndamental changes in INIA.

INIA’s Board of Directors took decisions to put the results of this participative
exercise into practice. This evolving process was a cycling of continuous improvement,
evaluating what has been done according to what has been planned, and then, applying
what was learned from the reflective analysis of the experience.

Because of that, in order to integrate the results from the process, and to connect them
in a logical way, they will be presented according to the main organizational aspects
studied.

These include the actions conducted by INIA in relation to the diagnosis obtained
from the Collaborative Evaluation Process (CEP), both the external and internal
environment analyses and the conclusions reached in the Collaborative Strategic Planning
Process (CSPP), and the evolving Learning Process Teamwork for Continuous

Improvement (LPTCI).

166

5.1 External Environment Analysis

The prospective analysis of the context and the factors affecting how INIA will
probably evolve in the fiiture started by characterizing the ecosystem in which it works.
Then the critical factors affecting INIA performance were studied in order to try to take
strategic advantage of the eventual contribution of the opportunities, and also, to try to

avoid the risk of the threats.

5.1.1 Ecosystem Description

A flow diagram Shows the inter-organizational relationships influencing INIA capacity.
It involves governmental institutions and the society, as well as the principal stakeholders
(interest groups affected by the activities of INIA), at the national, regional, and worldwide
level.

Figure 5.1 maps the set of organizations influencing or influenced by INIA, and assists

understanding what will be possible, desirable and influenced in the fiiture.

167

ECOSYSTEM AND RELATIONS OF INIA

   
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
   

 

CAF, ARU, FR.
FUCREA.
CNFR.
CAR/GT3
Breeder Soc.,
Cooperatives,
Fomento Soc.

 

 

 

 

University.
LATU, SUL,
Plan. CONICYT.
ONG 's

 

 

 

Environ; Plan.&
Prognm.0fllce

 

 

 

 

cm: WMIWM in

Figure 5.1 Ecosystem and INIA relationships

5.1.2 Relevant Critical Factor Identification and Analysis

From the External Environment Analysis, the following 12 critical factors were
selected (Paolino and Silva, 1995). They are connected through a causal relationship to
INIA performance: the social demands on agricultural research, the profile of the
agricultural technology demand, financial sustainability of the institution, the agriculture
suppliers (inputs, capital goods and services), the agro-industry-farmer relationship, the
changes in the regional dynamic of agricultural production, the agriculture markets and
regional integration, the emergent technological paradigms and their application in
agriculture (biotechnology, information, chemical), agriculture technology and natural

resources preservation, agriculture production and the primary factors of production, the

168

relationships with other institutions of technology transfer, and the technical international
cooperation.

Each factor was identified and described with regard to the forces acting to determine
tendencies (promoting and restricting), fiiture alternative stages, interaction with other

factors, and the implications for INIA in terms of both opportunities and threats.

5.1.3 Construction of Alternative Future Scenarios

Re—positioning INIA in relation to a varied and turbulent context requires the use of
alternative scenarios. The scenarios were constructed based on the anticipated future
evolution of the relevant critical factors analyzed for INIA performance. They were
defined considering models of development for the long-term in Uruguay. The four
resulting scenarios, are the following: a) agro-industrial development with equity, b)
concentrated agro-industrial development, c) development based on the services sector, and
(1) lack of structural changes and consolidation of defensive private strategies, oriented to the

short term.

5.1.4 Common Premises and Implications for the Alternative Scenarios

The premises and implications were established in each one of the alternative
constructed scenarios based on the analysis of the relevant critical factors selected.

They represent the firndamental base for the general objectives of INIA. They are the
relationship with society; the increasing awareness and organization of consumers; the
profile of demands for agricultural technology; the suppliers of inputs, products and

services; the relationship between farmers and agro-industry; the territorial dynamic in

169

the regionalization of production; new external influence on the Uruguayan economy;
new emergent technological paradigms; concern of the society in relation to
environmental impacts and the preservation of natural resources; the effects of
technological progress on the participation of the factors of production in the sector; the
relationship with other institutions, particularly those involved in technology
development and human resources formation; and the agenda for international technical

cooperation.

5.2 Internal Environment Analysis
The diagnosis of organizational capacity was obtained from different surveys

conducted during the process.

5.2.1 Restrictions in the Execution of the Projects

In the ex-post evaluation of the MTOP, the opinions of researchers in the self-
evaluation of the projects carried out in the previous MTOP were a firndamental input.
According to them, the different factors considered as restrictions in the execution of the

projects affecting the quality of the research activities, received low values (Table 5.1).

170

Table 5.1 Restrictions on the execution of the projects in the MT OP, according
to the self-evaluation of responsible researchers. May 1996.

 

 

 

 

 

Standard
Factors Mean Deviation
Support stafl 3 .55 1.92
Researchers 2.85 1 .98
Bibliography 2.55 1.56
Equipment 2.43 1 .62
Climate conditions 2.30 1.67
Materials 2.23 1 .50
Specialized training 2.17 1.72
Physical infrastructure 2. 14 1.58
Pest and diseases 1.96 1.58
Training in projects 1 .88 1 .48
Administrative support 1 .5 5 l .05
Per diem 1.30 0.81
Vehicles 1 .29 0.74
Gasoline and Diesel-oil 1.22 0.73

 

 

These results Show that opinions on restrictions in the organizational capacity, in a
scale from 1 (very low) to 7 (very high), had means ranging from 1.22 to 3.55. The
physical infrastructure and the operative resources were not the main limitations in recent
years at INIA. The operating costs also received the lowest values. These results
contrast with the situation at the level of the experiment stations when INIA was first
organized (Chapter 111). But, when the major restrictions are satisfied, others come up as

new ones. Because of that, the need for more personnel, both researchers and support

171

staff was felt as the new most important restrictions on improving the quality of the
research.

These judgements look reasonable as a consequence of: a) the IDB Project for
institutional strengthening, which built new buildings, field and laboratory equipment
(Chapter III), and at the same time b) the new INIA organizations, which with
autonomous management of an increased budget, clearly improved the operative

resources for work.

5.2.2 Opportunities to Improve Quality of the Projects

When researchers’ opinions were asked about opportunities to improve quality in the
projects, the traditional factors limiting execution of the projects in the past, such as
physical and operating resources, were at the lowest level of importance. In contrast,
factors associated with human resource management and development have emerged.
Thus, it appears that in order to take advantage of the expanded infrastructure and well
equipped facilities, there are several human needs to be satisfied: 1) more personnel (both
researchers and support staff), 2) a continuous education policy, 3) better teamwork,
organization, and firnctioning, 4) permanent up-dated bibliography access, and 5) the
most important, a more reasonable time allocation. This last preoccupation refers to the
need for allowing researchers to be more efficient in the use of their highly specialized
and costly time.

The most important factors indicated to improve quality are summarized in

Figure 5.2.

172

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I Time availability

I Bibliography access

I Multidisciplinary teams
E1 Support Staff

I Support Staff Training
I Researchers Training
El Researchers

I Materials

B Field Equipment

I Administrative Functioning
a Building Infrastructure
El Vehicles

I Per Diem

I Gasoline & Diesel-oil

Figure 5.2 Opportunities to improve quality of the projects according to

researcher opinions.

5.2.3 Strengths and Weaknesses of Factors

There was an in depth discussion among the staff about internal environment analysis.

This was done in development of the strategic planning of the MTIP. The organizational
strengths and weaknesses were examined in relation to the external opportunities and
threats. The meetings were very productive in terms of the broad scope of exchanges of
ideas treated from diverse perspectives (Diaz and Duran, 1995).

storming process. After screening them, some remarkable issues were established to be

considered in the strategic planning.

173

It started a brain-

 

   

  
  

Evaluation

 
  
    

      

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

31-30%} 3, Ir . A-rrw-'t:;;::::;:.:.:..f..1.. 0 0
arrr r 'r .1 1 A , I , ' swung-"iii om on“
v: ............. ivy v..s..1..eo.....nyoq..1.sx ....... H_
[111 r r r .1 Y1§x1vfy+a
I Planning
El Eq 'pment maint.
,_;; f- . ;:r:: ::.‘.::; 3; H, ..-_;:: .11: .2"- 2:1": ‘ ..'
“1-..-..5, k'~-* ‘ O
:14: :.::_;.._.:.'. :.....:r._ .. .. .. =
,k.ne-p... .. .. .. m .

 

 

 

 

Building maint.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.......... ,, ,,,. it “'1 ~ mnunding capac.
. i v __v _ lCont.Ed.
[:1 PhD
-2 Weakness -l 0 1 Strength 2

Figure 5.3 Strengths and weaknesses of main factors included in the Internal
Environment Analysis, during the Medium Term Strategic Planning.

In relation to organizational capacity, the results found in this internal survey (Figure
5.3) showed similar tendencies to the ones presented before in section 5.2.2.

The judgment about the factors from this survey in relation to organizational capacity
can be summarized as follows:

Regarding the physical resources, the building and equipment capacity was
considered high, principally based on the INIA/[DB Project implementation, but the
maintenance of them seemed to be a fiiture problem.

Human resources staffing was a critical area needing improvement. With regard to
training, the post-graduate study at the level of the M.Sc., was considered a strength. It
was based on a Project developed by INIA with the USA. University Consortium for
Generation and Transfer of Agricultural Technology in Uruguay, coordinated by M.S.U.,

and supported by the [DB Project. However, the proportion of PhD. degrees in the total

174

research group should increase significantly. A continuous education program for all the
staff was also recommended.

Regarding organizational management, it is clear that monitoring and evaluation were
considered critical factors to be improved. But planning was considered to be already
advanced.

This analysis may help fixture decisions on capital investment.

All the resources are necessary but not one alone is sufficient. Some direct
consequences of the capital investments in the INIA/IDB Project were the building of
capacity. This included three new buildings, remodeling of others, laboratories, new
sophisticated equipment, and machinery, green houses, growth chambers, seed units, and
information system (Chapter 1H).

There appears to be a synergic complementarity between the IDB fimds applied
mainly in capital investment, and the increase in INIA’s own resources, mainly for
human resources salaries and for operating costs. This has resulted in a relatively
balanced organizational capacity development in recent years.

That point is critical because the human capacity must be closely related to policies
and priority setting. It is difficult to re-orient an organization to different purposes
because of the extended gestation period for activities in agricultural research. The
operating costs, on the other hand, are more related to the execution of current projects.

Before the re—formulation of INTA, agricultural research was characterized by
unbalanced availability of resources. This may be explained by the restricted allocation

of different sources of firnds, leading to inefficiencies and inadequate utilization. The

175

diagnostic work helps anticipate these fixture problems related to conservation of the
expanded infrastructure.

These are well-known problems in agricultural research, and decisions on new
investments must be linked closely to decisions on how to overcome inadequate funding
for operations and maintenance.

FPTA plays an important role in complementing resources with those of other

organizations for increased potential.

5.2.4 Infrastructure

The significant inputs of the IDB project were applied mainly to develop an
appropriate infrastructure. This enormous effort was used efficiently.

The buildings were constructed with reasonable dimensions, taking into account the
experience of other Experiment Stations in design, materials, laboratories, conference
rooms, fixnctional distribution of offices, and meeting rooms.

The concern for developing an infrastructure that would facilitate the teamwork
philosophy was reflected in the new buildings. The oldest Experiment Station had just
two meeting rooms; the latest has a much higher proportion of meeting rooms in relation
to individual offices. There was strategic distribution to encourage people to work
together in teams.

INIA has also incorporated modern equipment, and information technologies.

The challenge will be the fixture maintenance of buildings, and the renewal in

equipment to keep it updated.

176

5.2.5 Financial Sustainability of INIA
INIA has been increasing its budget since it was first organized (INIA, 1998a).
Figure 5.4 shows the evolution of the INIA budget and its sources for the last five years.

USS

I Others

I Products & Services
I Agreements

8 Government

I Farmers

 

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Figure 5.4 Evolution of the INIA budget and sources of the income structure
(1994—1998)
Source: INIA, Unidad de Administracién y Finanzas (1998)

All components of the budget are increasing, particularly the contribution of farmers
and, consequently of the government. Sales of their own production and services are also
growing.

This increase in the budget is accompanied by a controlled human resource policy
which allows allocation of up to 43% of the expenditures in operating costs (INIA,

1998a) ( (Figure 5.5).

177

Others
6%

  
  
   

 
  
  

43 °/o

Figure 5.5 Global composition of INIA expenditures (1998)

A main reason for that is the matching grants approach to financing that INIA has
adopted, in which fixnds come from a diversity of sources.
In the Figure 5.6 (INIA, 1998c) the increasing income obtained from licenses and

royalties of crops and forage cultivars released by INIA is presented.

 

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

I Crops I Forages

Figure 5.6 Incomes obtained by licenses and royalties of crops and forage
cultivars released by INIA in the last years.
Source: INIA, Area Cultivos (1998).

178

The Royalties are an example of outcomes that are increasing INIA ‘3 income, as
consequence of successfixl release of well-adapted material to improve the systems of
production. At the same time, these Show an indirect indicator of relevance and

effectiveness in the plant breeding programs.

5.2.6 Human Resource Development

The internal surveys at the beginning of the process Showed that human resource
management and development issues were the most important limitations in improving
the quality of the products, services, processes and management in INIA. ISNAR had
provided the basis for establishing a Human Resource Unit in INIA that was described in
Chapter III. INIA’s is autonomous status had provided the opportunity for a thorough
appraisal of the previous conditions of service in the central administration.

Nevertheless, the results found in the internal diagnostic work at INIA reflect the
same situation common in other organizations, and particularly in NARS. It included the
following dimensions of organizational behavior: motivation, leadership, communication,
conflict management, delegation, decision making, and team building (Bennell, 1989;
Wagner, 1995).

A long process was developed to reformulate human resource areas in INTA. Its main
feature was teamwork at the national level, with a high level of personnel participation.

The Human Resources Re-Formulation (1999) was a process in which the author
was involved in the coordination. It resulted in new staffing, job description and
analysis, appraisal performance system, career planning, and rewards, covering the main

area of human resource management and strategies (Schuler and Huber, 1993). AS a

179

result of this participative process, more competitive salaries in relation to the market
were assigned, increasing at a general average of about 11%.

The Board of Directors’ resolution, dated 3/5/99 refers to “the external specialized
consultant support, a first adjustment of critical cases in December of 1997, and then, the
participation of the personnel, during June and July of 1998, through facilitators Teams,
based on a proposal related to Job Evaluation, Appraisal Performance, and Career Plan,
and these suggestions from the personnel were studied and incorporated in the proposa ”
(INIA Board of Directors’ Resolution N° 1.424.99)

As a consequence of this participative human resource re-formulation, INIA has
adopted a new staffing pattern, appraisal performance system, and career plan. These are
well known by the staff because they were discussed during this process.

An important insight on this process comes from comparing two questions. One was
a question in the initial survey in December of 1996 about what personnel were willing to
contribute to the continuous improvement process. That was very positive, even with the
natural doubts on the implementation of something new in the organization. After
participating in this experience, the final attitude of strong support in continuing with it
was expressed in the final survey.

Figure 5.7 presents data from the survey of all INIA’s staff at the beginning of the
process (December 1996). The very positive position at that time expressed the need for
strong teamwork, cooperation, commitment and involvement, training requirement and

communication.

180

 

Communication

ICommitment , .

 

I cooperation

 

    

I teamwork

 

 

0 50 H; 150
Figure 5.7 Contribution of personnel to the implementation of the Continuous
Improvement Process at INTA
In this process, the attitude of the personnel seems to be reinforced. The frequencies
of respondents to the question about continuing the application of the continuous
improvement methodology to organizational development, showed a mode of 6, in a

scale ranging from 1 to 7 (Figure 5.8).

 

Figure 5.8 Frequencies of respondents on continuing the application of the
Continuous Improvement methodology to Organizational Development.

181

The most important guidelines of this reformulation were the following:

a. Staffing

Human resources planning and management are centrally concerned with the
establishment of appropriate reward systems. The main objective of any compensation
scheme is to seek to maximize employee productivity in accordance with organizational
objectives.

Attractive careers based on appropriately designed grade and salary structures are an
essential prerequisite for: a) high quality searches, by recruiting the most qualified
professionals, and b) keeping researchers well motivated to carry out their duties and
responsibilities.

A comprehensive scheme for the grading and pay structures of researchers,
technicians, and support staff was developed.

The new scheme is a matrix structure of positions, including 13 categories of jobs and
14 levels for each category. There are specifications describing how to be promoted in
vertical and in horizontal directions, based on the scores obtained in performance
appraisal.

These grades and salary schemes, which replace the existing ones, are designed to
meet the motivational and overall career needs of INIA professionals and other staff

categories.

182

b. Appraisal Performance System

The performance of the staff is the main objective of the agricultural research
manager.

Staff appraisal has greater potential for improving performance than any other area of
human resources. In general, appraisal performance assessment systems have the
problem that the performance of scientists, in common with other knowledge workers, is
difficult, given the complexity, uniqueness, and novelty of the tasks carried out by the
agricultural research organization.

An appraisal performance assessment system was approved by INIA in 1994, based
on objectives accomplished, and introducing great changes from the central
administration system (Allegri and Cerizola, 1994).

However, it was reviewed in the whole participative human resources re-

formulation.

c. Human Resources Training

The Institute has a long tradition of encouraging researchers to participate in
continuous training, and the post-graduate formation degree is a main requirement.
These programs are supported by different international cooperation agencies, and
complemented when needed with INIA's own fixnds.

During recent years, a large program, fixnded by an IDB loan, was developed with
seven USA Universities, coordinated by MSU, providing fixnds to 35 post-graduate

researchers.

183

The training policy for PhD. degrees has changed considerably, and increased the
proportion of Ph.D.s among INIA researchers. The 6% PhD. and 3% PhD. candidates

in 1994, increased to 16% PhD. already finished and 10% currently studying in 1999

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Figure 5.9).
, PU , ,. _;,
II 1994 II 49% gift?fijjf}5'g;:f}ij:i;;}5;§
|| 1999 ll

 

 

Figure 5.9 Evolution of the post-graduate degree distribution. 1994-1999

PU (Bachelor Degree); MSc“ and PhD‘ (researchers currently studying)

It is shown in Figure 5.10 that 55% of researchers have been trained in Universities in

the USA. M.S.U. has prepared the largest number.

184

%

 

 

IIIII

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

        

 

 
 

 
  

 

‘- \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
J'

   

3:.(~1\\\\\\\\\ ‘
«:23

 
 

?////7
III]! / ll/ Ill/l
0, staW/i’eaflfl- .. .. .. ”first
o N e
‘2' Q N o (7
3 3 ° o S"

Figure 5.10 Post-graduate degree distribution according to countries.

Participation in international activities through short courses, training in specific

techniques, seminars, workshop and congresses is also encouraged by INIA.

5.2.7 Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (PM&E)

“INIA will have to go in depth with the permanent system of planning, monitoring
and evaluation integrated to the Continuous Improvement Process and Total Quality
Management” (Bonino, P., President of INIA at the inauguration day of the present Board
of Directors, May, 1997).

In relation to this, INIA is currently revising its PM&E processes, and planning to
establish a new Unit, based on the experience obtained in recent years. This study has
contributed with methodology and instruments for fixture actions. These modifications
are included in the new project profile guide adopted by INIA.

To consolidate a PM&E Unit in the new organizational structure, a specific strategic

project has been included in the IDB/INIA II Project.

185

5.2.8 New Project Profile Guide

As a result of this reflective process, a new Project Profile Guide was defined and
internally distributed in 1997.

Research projects were formulated based on problem identification within the
framework of the strategic documents. This was done at the level of each Area, which
defined the orientation, the main areas of strategic intervention and within each of them,
the research topics in the Medium Term Indicative Plan.

A Project to be carried out by INIA was defined as: a set of activities, oriented to the
solution of an identified problem, with established results to be obtained in a defined
term, through a determined methodology. It is to be executed by a research team, with
the application of given resources through an established budget process, and with
indicators of accomplishment which facilitate its monitoring and evaluation.

The project is the smallest unit of institutional management. Projects are used to
organize research activities to accomplish common objectives, and to identify needed
resources.

This new guide for formulating projects includes indicators to facilitate the
monitoring of activities and evaluation of their results.

A guide for the new format for research Projects in the next Medium Term Indicative
Plan was developed at a Workshop at the Experiment Station INIA La Estanzuela. It was

then improved by the Project Unit in collaboration with the researchers (INIA, 1997b).

186

5.3 Organizational Motivation

The participation in the learning process teamwork for continuous improvement, in
the multidisciplinary approach, in the shared mission and vision, as well as in seeking
ways of improving communication has been vital in strengthening the organizational

motivation.

5.3.1 The Learning Process Teamwork for Continuous Improvement

(LPTCI)

A vital contribution to organizational motivation is the Learning Process Teamwork
for Continuous Improvement (LPTCI). It is based in the Total Quality Management (TQM)
approach, as a tool to engage in this organizational development process.

This process was promoted and it is increasingly encouraged by INIA’s Board of
Directors. The main steps developed in the implementation of this process were the

following:

1) Guide Team Actions.

A multidisciplinary team was established and it started by defining its mission as
follows:

Guide Team Mission: “To lead the Process of Continuous Improvements, being an
example in the action, promoting and encouraging the implementation of the Master Plan,
defining indicators of success of Quality, strengthens of definition of shared Mission,
Vision and Values, connected with the reality, creating in people empowerment and the

commitment of Quality” (Guide Team Mission as defined by the members themselves).

187

The guide team examined the available information, basically found during the
execution of the projects in the MTOP (Table 5.1), the opportunities identified to
improve quality of the projects (Figure 5.2), and from the weakness, that were viewed as
opportunities to improve quality, from the internal environment assessment in the MTIP
(Figure 5.3).

The different diagnostics were in general agreement, showing that the organization, at
that moment had a very satisfactory infrastructure (in terms of buildings, field machinery
and experimental equipment, greenhouses, laboratories, computer hardware and required
software, integrating network among the experiment stations, vehicles), and the operation
costs (such as inputs at the level of field and laboratories, per diems, gasoline and diesel
to travel within the country, and resources to cover participation in international events).

However, compared with the physical and financial resources, the human resources
management and development were considered the main areas that needed to be

improved.

2) Experiment Stations Meetings survey
After the meetings at the Experimental Stations with INIA authorities and all the staff
from November to December 1996, the guide team analyzed the data collected. They
identified the most important ideas, the main obstacles and restrictions that might
interfere with the implementation of the continuous improvement process, the best
attitude to contribute with actions to be taken, emerging doubts, and related suggestions.
The opinion of the personnel about the suggestions to improve quality in the

organization (December 1996) is presented in Figure 5.11.

188

 

I Leadership
[1 Resources

Teamwork

     

I Reward System

11.111111111111111.

1111 Communication WWW

  
  

 

E Training
fl Participation

 

 

 

Figure 5.11 Suggestions to improve quality in the organization from the
INIA‘s personnel.
It was shown that participation was required from the staff in: a) the process, b) training
to contribute effectively to it, and c) to improve communication, the reward system and

teamwork, which were new ideas introduced and are related to organizational motivation.

3) Reaffirmation by Board of Directors

In his inauguration speech, the new President of INIA said that “the concept of quality
in the products, processes and management is integrated to everyday language of any
productive initiative, and it transforms an imperative to internalize in the INIA
organization, and it will have to incorporate definitively the continuous improvement

process and total quality management.” (Bonino, 1997).

189

The President of INIA, on behalf of the Board of Directors, also supported
reinforcement of the continuous improvement process through a letter sent to each

member of Facilitator Teams remarking the highest priority given to this process.

4) Training Facilitator Teams.

During the intensive seminar/workshop in July 1997, the members of the guide and
facilitators teams, working in groups, elaborated and defined the following shared
missions:

Facilitator Team Mission: “To contribute to identify problems and to support
methodologies of working, interacting with the staff of the Experiment Stations, National
and Regional Directors, and Board of Directors, promoting the process of continuing
improvement, facilitating communication, a better working environment, as well as
motivation and human resource development, towards improvement of the quality of
products and services offered at regional level, taking into account the mission and vision
of INIA, in order to satisfy the requirements of clients” (facilitator team mission as
defined by the members themselves).

This training had received a very positive evaluation from the participants about the
organization of the workshop, the program and thematic content, the methodology
utilized, and the level of participation. It was rated from 3.4 to 3.9 in a scale fiom 1 to 4.

Reflections written by participants in the evaluation of it also were very enthusiastic.

Some of them are presented here:

190

“The best way to improve the organization”

“The only road for INIA to transit to improve its management, but I have doubts that
the urgent activities will put this process in second place”

“It is the boat that will take us to new ports, it is different, challenge and feasible to
address in an institutional teamwork effort”

“Very positive if it is well applied, promotes teamwork, personal motivation and self-
development”

“We are in a good road and we feel motivated to collaborate through this process”

“Excellent opportunity to grow institutionally and at the individual level”

“As in any journey I see potential problems, but manageable, particularly with the
strong support expressed by the members of the Boards of Directors”

“It will be a great contribution to improve the internal environment, and principally,
the relationship with the external environment, our users.”

“We came to this Seminar/Workshop with lack of trust and we left with the
conviction that it is a must to do it as the only way toward improvement.”

“The moment is very appropriate to start with”

“An essential activity, it should be faced seriously to become leaders”

“It is the process to achieve the excellence”

“It is the way to adapt to the modern vision of organization for the XXI Century”

Suggestions:

“To continue with this process, INIA authorities have to support it, strengthen it and
give it priority to the Plan of action of the Teams”

“Permanent and unconditional support, to continue with training”

191

“To continue in contact, there was a very friendly activity, with high collaboration in
the group”

“ To improve daily in order to achieve quality leadership of our organization”

“To keep the leadership by internal staff, developing activities at the experiment
stations”

“To prepare own manuals and specific bibliography for INIA related to the issues
treated”

“To internalize in the Simplest way indicating what we are looking for at all levels in
the Institution,”

“My recognition for considering me for this challenge mission”

“Go ahead! 1”

5) Teamwork Groups for Continuous Improvement.

Teamwork groups were developed in relation to the regional level emergent
problems from each experiment station’s surveys, as well as institutional problems
identified and prioritized at the national level (from the internal environmental analysis
during the strategic planning. Each facilitator team identified specific problems on
which to work, and some of them also work on institutional problems at national level.

At the regional level, there were prioritized problems such as, receptionists and
internal communications (INTA National Direction-headquarters), toxicity from
agrochemical products manipulation (INIA La Estanzuela and INIA Salto Grande), the
movement to a new building (INIA Treinta y Tres), lunch facilities and fixnctioning

(INIA Tacuarembo), arrangements for staff transportation to works (INIA Las Brujas).

192

At the institutional national level the main problems prioritized were human resources
reformulation, administrative procedures, communication, and work safety.

As an example, there was a working safety group, in which specialists participated
with staff at the experiment stations. A diagnostic process was carried out with the
purpose of identifying labor risks and the causes.

Based on the recommendations, INIA is improving labor safety and environmental
protection, dealing with such potential problems, as: risks in the management of
agrochemical toxicity, risks in agricultural equipment, industrial risks, risks of fire, risks
in laboratories, traffic accidents. As a consequence, teamwork has been established in

relation to each of these main issues.

6) Human Resources Teamwork

The human resources area, was identified as the most important problem to be treated
under this methodology. It involved all staff, at different moments, and it was very high
in time consumption.

A group including personnel from different experiment stations and categories
(researchers, technicians, administrative, labs and field workers), worked with the support
of a private consultant to develop a draft proposal. After discussion with the National
Coordination Committee, and the Board, a tentative proposal was introduced through the
facilitator teams in a two-day workshop at INIA La Estanzuela. Later, it spread out to the
rest of the staff, and feedback was received from them. This was a clear signal that the
most important issue at that moment in INIA was analysis of it through a structured

questionnaire to obtain a systematization of the ideas and contributions. Even though the

193

people were in an early stage of the process, and taking considerable challenge (risk to
fail for lack of enough training), the Board gave strong support and there was a consensus
among the teams regarding taking this responsibility.

The principal suggestions to incorporate in the proposal, evolved through consensus
by the staff, were introduced by the Board in the final document. It was adopted in
Resolution dated March 11, 1999.

At the end of the human resources reformulation process, the opinions of the staff
were collected and analyzed through the parameters available in the statistical package.
The description of the most relevant parameters, are presented in the table 5.2.

A global analysis considering Staffing category, age, sex, and region were analyzed
globally because of the independence of variables found.

The results Show that the opportunity to include this proposal on human resources
within the LPCIP was considered appropriate. While the knowledge of the proposal on
human resources previous to participation of the staff in this process was very low, it was
improved by the effective transmission of the proposal. The methodology of working in
groups to accomplish the stated objectives, the contribution of these actions to improve
the communication at the institutional level, the possibility of expressing the opinion
from the staff in this consultative process, and, particularly, the desire to continue the
application of the LPCIP methodology to organizational development in INIA, were very
high.

These tendencies are demonstrated through the median and mode values.

194

Table 5.2 Mean, standard deviation, median, and mode of the INTA personnel after

the human resource participative reformulation process (n=197).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mean St. Dev. Median Mode
To include I-IHRR in LPTCI 5.295 1.447 6.000 6.000
Knowledge previous of proposal 2. 489 1,122 2.000 1.000
Effectiveness in the transmission 4.506 1.418 5.000 5.000
Appropriateness of methodology 5.375 1.286 6.000 6.000
To be able to express your opinion 4.839 1.644 5.000 6.000
Contribution to communication 5.236 1.347 5.000 6.000
To continue LPTCI in INIA 5.597 1.364 6.000 6.000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These results show the very strong support from the INIA staff for continuing with
the application of the continuous improvement and teamwork methodology as a way to
achieve organizational development.

Administrative issues, information technology system, communication and work

safety or security, were also selected problems.

5.3.2 Multidisciplinarity

By promoting the format of mega-projects, the number of projects was reduced and
the size of their corresponding research teams increased. The expected impact, also, will
be higher.

The great increase in number of disciplines in each project, and also, number of
researchers and commodities in each project, as a result of this strategic planning has

been accompanied by the culture of teamwork. This is more important than the

195

quantitative analysis. The research teams were formed to create proposals according to
the problems/opportunities prioritized, and this was accomplished through work together,

from the beginning, looking for consensus in the decisions regarding the projects.

Researcher] Projects

 

 

 

Disciplines I Project

 

 

 

 

Commodities I Project

 

 

 

 

Crops AILPmd. Horti-Fnli Forestry

 

I MTOP (1992-1996) a MTIP (1997-2001)

Figure 5.12 Changes in the number of disciplines, researchers and commodities by
project from MTOP (1992) to MTIP (1996).

196

5.3.3 INIA’s shared Mission and Vision

The collective exercise, including external and internal participation in the discussion
about “our mission and vision”, resulted in simple, clear and precise shared statements, as
follows:

Shared Mission:

“To contribute to the development of the national agricultural sector through the
generation, incorporation and adaptation of knowledge and technologies, making them
available for the benefit of farmers, considering important factors such as government
policies, sustainability, agro-industrial sector and consumers”.

Shared Vision:

“To be a national and regional institution providing leadership to foresee agricultural
needs and recognized for its human and professional excellence and the quality of its
services and products”.

The mission and vision established for first time at INA, during this strategic
planning, were included in all institutional publications, in picture frames in all
conference rooms at the experiment stations and headquarters, and well as displayed in
other different convenient forms, within and outside of the organization.

The shared mission is in agreement with the results from the survey of researchers
about ex - post evaluation of the MTOP (May 1996), that indicated the primary

importance of farmers as immediate users of the research outcomes (Figure 5.13).

197

 

 

80 J
70 -
8
6.
r:
O
i 50 —
M
h-
o
Oz 40 -
’ Others
30 _ , . Researchers

    

PolicyMakers
Extension'nts
Consumers

202

 

Priorities

Figure 5.13 Immediate users of research outcomes, according to the researchers.

5.3.4 Communication
Communication is one of the main concerns drawn from surveys carried out in INIA
during this process. This is considered a common situation in organizational behavior in

general, and particularly in agricultural research organizations.

198

Internal communication is crucial and it is a weakness to be addressed. The
implementation of a participative continuous improvement process, involving all
personnel, will contribute to improve this crucial weakness. This general assumption was
drawn from the survey at the end of the human resource teamwork in July 1998.

Fluent and transparent communication are essential for an open environment and
healthy workplace.

Based on the results from surveys related to internal environment assessment, a
diagnostic study of organizational communication was developed in INIA with the
purpose of identifying problems restricting the internal communication processes.
Besides that, it was an attempt to analyze the causes, consequences and implications, and
feasible alternatives to solve them based on the available resources, as well as
identification of potentialities to continue the development of communications.

Some researchers would like to have better defined roles, operating procedures, and
vertical communication channels. These considerations are related to the matrix structure
and the organizational model of INIA. The conflicts that arise, mainly overlapping
programmatic and operative areas, require appropriate management to keep conflict to a
minimum.

Even though the level of motivation is most directly influenced by the compensation
scheme, the motivational needs and responses of research scientists have particularities.
The optimal compensation scheme for research scientists will recognize that researchers
place considerably more value on non-financial extrinsic rewards, such as the need for

professional recognition and autonomy, opportunities for achievement, challenge, and

199

self-actualization than conventional intrinsic rewards based on material gain, such as

salary and other benefits.

5.4 Organizational Performance

The programmatic analysis of past and current institutional performance, through the
Collaborative Evaluation Process (CEP), was the first phase of the research. It supplied
essential information required for the internal environment analysis within the strategic
planning process.

This was an ex—post evaluation of INIA’s technical-scientific research activities
carried out during the Medium Term Operative Plan (1992—1996).

It was programmatic diagnostic institutional research, based on the following criteria:

5 .4. 1 Effectiveness

5.4.2 Efficiency

5.4.3 Scientific Quality

5.4.4 Programmatic Consistency

5.4.5 Relevance

5.4.1 Effectiveness

Effectiveness was defined as accomplishment of the explicit technical-programmatic
goals, and was measured on a scale of l to 7. The 100% effectiveness included the final
reports, and the evaluation was made during the last year of execution. A generally high
effectiveness in the research projects of the previous plan was found (see Table 5.3), with

a mean = 4.80, and standard-deviation = 1.29.

200

The incorporation of projects as the basic units of work in research had been

incorporated in the previous plan. These facilitated the accomplishment of the expected

outcomes.

As an example, according to a recent report (INIA, 1998c), INIA’s cultivars in

legumes and grasses for forages are covering most of the seed used for improving

pastures, and 17 cultivars were released during this decade. In cereals and oil crops, the

adoption is increasing rapidly, achieving 97% in rice (Figure 5.14).

°/o

100

I 1991
1998

 

Rice Wheat Barley Maize

Figure 5.14 Evolution in the proportion of the market occupied by INIA’s cultivars

Source: INIA, Area Cultivos (1998)

5.4.2 Efficiency

Efficiency was determined as an estimation of relationship between effectiveness and

costs, and was judged on a scale of 1 to 7. It was also high for most of the research

projects (see Table 5.3), with a mean = 5.14, and standard deviation = 1.01.

201

The administration had developed a detailed information system to control costs. The
center of costs for total allocation as a new administrative way to manage projects by
responsible researchers has contributed to the increasing institutional efficiency in using

the allocated resources.

5.4.3 Scientific Quality (Methodological Rigor)

The evaluation by leaders of the methodological rigor of the projects was high, and is
shown in Table 5.3.

This can be explained by the high level of post-graduate education and experience of
the researchers working in INIA.

Also, the previous External Scientific Committee, established at the beginning of the
MTOP, was in charge of reviewing each research proposal, and making
recommendations to reformulate them when needed. This was a requirement for each
project to be approved, and contributed to accomplish with the standards of scientific

quality of the research projects.

202

Table 5.3 Organizational performance scores given by leaders in the ex—post
evaluation of the Projects executed in the Medium Term Operative Plan

 

 

 

(1972-76).

Standard

Mean Deviation
Efi'ectiveness 4. 80 l .29
Efiiciency 5. l4 1 .05

Methodological Rigor

Suitable Tittle 5.93 1.10
Methodology Validity 5.60 0.89
Data Collection and Analysis 5.51 0.98
Conclusions Drawn 5.67 0.95
Strategy Applied 5.56 0.91
Term Set 5.19 1.36
Scientific Literature Review 5.89 0.97
Publications Quality 5.06 0.97
Extrapolation of Results 5. l6 1 .23
Contribution to Thematic Units 5.17 1.32
Contribution to Programs 5.11 1.28
Relative Importance 5.33 1.34

 

 

5.4.4 Programmatic Consistency

The hierarchical contribution leads from Projects to Thematic Units, then to
Programs , then to Areas, and finally to INIA’s mission and vision.

The high score values found in relation to the projects’ contributions to Thematic
Units, and to Programs (means of 5.37 and 5.11, respectively), indicate a programmatic
consistency. This is confirmed by the high values (mean = 5.33) for the relative

importance of the projects within the Programs (Table 5.3).

203

5.4.5 Relevance

Relevance has been assessed in relation to the utility of the research results from the
MTOP. At this time, it was about the new objectives for research projects. The process
involved the external stakeholders as a main source of valuing.

During the discussion meetings, with RACS and WGS, the relevance of the research
results and the diffusion activities were given very positive comments.

These are reflected in the relevance of the present Projects included in the MTOP,
when evaluated as the first input for the formulation of the MT IP.

The proposed ideas about problems/opportunities for Projects to be included in the
MTIP were discussed at meetings of the Regional Advisory Committees. The relevance
of the Projects, mainly in relation to the next Medium Term Indicative Plan, was an input.
Some projects were recommended to be continued without modification; others, for

reformulation; and some of them, to be finished.

 

 

 

To Continue

 

 

To Reformulate 3?. . ..

 

 

To Finish

Others 21:?

 

 

 

 

T

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Figure 5.15 Leaders’ recommendations based on prospective analysis of the
projects in the Medium Term Operative Plan in relation to the next
Medium Term Indicative Plan

204

As shown in Figure 5.15, more than a half of the Projects were recommended for
reformulation, just 18% to be continued without modifications, and 29% to finish with
preparation of their final reports.

These recommendations were related to the consideration on the stage of maturity of
the process of technological development for each Project of the MTOP. According to
the survey, most of the Projects were in early stages of the curve of developing,
exploration or starting, taking risks, but when the opportunity of impact is very high, and
in the stage of validation, transferring the technology to be adopted. The resources then,
are allocated to other researchable problems with high priority and potential impact,
instead of continuing work on adjustment with very low impact on the same line of

research (Figure 5.16).

 

 

 

 

Exploration Adjustment

Figure 5.16 Stage of maturity of the process of technological development of the
projects of the MT OP.

205

The general evaluation of the relevance was concentrated in the problem/opportunity
identification for the coming planning (Section 5.5).
Relevance is strongly related to this issue, which had a deep change as a result of the

strategic planning in INIA.

5.5 Problem Identification
The problem/opportunity identification is considered a key element in the research
orientation process. It influences the demand-driven research process, and it consequently

affects the fixture relevance and impact of the research outcomes.

5.5.1 Problem Identification in the MTOP (1992)

The data obtained from the self-evaluation of researchers (December 1996) are

presented in Figure 5.17.

206

 

     

 

3
U
333-.
o
h-
a.
h
o
0'
Z
........ ., :2. - ‘3,“ k" Others
& g .. . 3:... 3.3.3 .3; . C am “I'm“
6 Q 3_ m . . 1.: . $3 ..3 ....23 :3- Prog
s . 6’ ”m"
If) (is Q $5 Researchers
5.. a? Q 0 8 RAC
0
as its '* 435' f £3 a
Q8 4, § :9 .e it;
(.7

Figure 5.17 Sources of Problem identification, by Programs, in the planning of the
Medium Term Operative Plan (1992-1996), according to the
researcher’s self-evaluation

This table shows that the past Plan was mainly deliberative, in which the researchable
problems were proposed by the INIA researchers (supply-induced research). Even

though the proposals were submitted to the Regional Advisory Committees to be

approved before being implemented, the members considered that their fixnction was

mainly a legitimization of the problem assessment.

The WGS were the second source of problem identification, being the most important

in the projects related to Horticulture.

207

This procedure of identifying the researchable problems by the researchers in 1992,

may now be compared with the participatory strategic planning in 1996.

5.5.2 Problem Identification in the MTIP (1996)

A contrasting way of problem identification emerged in INIA. The sequence in the
strategic planning basically was: 1) to identify the problems/opportunities, in
collaboration between researchers and stakeholders, and then 2) to formulate research
proposals by teams.

The priority ideas for projects for the next plan were developed in continuing back and
forth dialogue among the RACS and WGS. Researchers and stakeholders utilized a set of
connected steps as follows:

a) Prospective Studies by Areas.

The prospective studies by Areas were drafted by teamwork taking into account the
documents on external environment analysis and the document on evaluation of MI‘ OP.
These studies were internally and externally validated, later on, and were the expected
documents of reference to orient the technological agricultural research for the MTIP.

This framework characterized the principal productive systems (production,
transformation and consumer) from economic, productive, and technological points of view.

They included (i) tendencies for the fixture 15 years, (fixture scenarios and expected
changes in the components of the systems, threats and opportunities, analysis of critical
factors, the main themes for research); (ii) the available technological solutions and the
potential from research (characteristics of present demand, advances obtained in available

technologies, lines of research to go in depth, capture of international available knowledge);

208

and (iii) conclusions and recommendations on the principal lines of research to develop and
guidelines for prioritization and Size.

In general, a technological gap was found between the national average rate of
production and the advanced farmers, which is an opportunity for technical assistance
organizations. But, a gap was also detected between these farmers and the results that could
be obtained by applying the available validated knowledge and technologies, which Should
be faced by the articulation of generation and the technology transfer system.

AS a principal conclusion, these analyses demonstrated the relevant tendencies in the
present demand in the markets for higher quality requirements. The predominant productive
paradigm in recent decades was concentrated on quantity and efficiency of agricultural
production. The quality and value-added products were remarkable in all of them.

The sustainability of the system of production, and the effects from the application of the
proposed technological changes on the natural resources (soil, water, atmosphere, biological
diversity) have become a new essential responsibility for most of the NARS, taking into
account the requirement of providing for fixture generations.

Therefore, the challenges for the agricultural research system, in a country where the
agro-industrial continuum plays a key role in the national economy, is to contribute to
improve the productivity, satisfying quality demands of final products, taking into account
the markets which better value for the agricultural products offered, within a context of
concern about sustainability of the systems of production and the natural resources.

Tire INTA plan of work has to be responsive to the demand, as expressed through the
identified needs at the levels of systems of production. To satisfy these, INIA should utilize

all the knowledge and technology already generated (in the institutional memory); capture

209

all information available internationally; and seek relationship, coordination and
collaboration through strategic alliances with public and private institutions at the national
and international level.

This process of synthesis and the economic evaluation of technological information
according to the needs of the systems of production should be the fixndamental tool for
communication among farmers and extensionists, promoting this two way mechanism.

INIA should try to harmonize the increasing requirement for disciplinary specialization
with an effective integration in multidisciplinary teams, with the economic evaluation and
validation of each proposed innovation of technology, to improve the relevance,
effectiveness, efficiency and quality of the research as well as to facilitate the transfer of the
obtained results.

These four documents by Areas were published by INTA (INIA, 1999a, 1999b,
1999c, and 199%).

b) Identifying Strategic Issues

After including all the internal and external inputs, the strategic studies were drafted by
the Specialized technical committees, as a framework for setting priorities for the future
planning.

Strategic issues facing INIA were described in terms of “windows of entry”, taking into
account the opportunities and threats (external environment) and strengths and weaknesses
(internal environment), as well as reaffirmation of the mission and vision.

c) Topics of Prioritization.

The Prioritization of areas and themes were discussed among the researchers and the

Regional Advisory Councils and extended Working Groups. These were main criteria for

210

setting priorities based on the magnitude of the technological demand. The criteria to
prioritize the objectives of agricultural research took into account quantitative and
qualitative information about the (i) efficiency (importance of the commodities through
production value), (ii) beneficiaries contribution related to INIA, (iii) international trade, (iv)
fixture demand, (v) competitive advantages, (vi) probability of success, (vii) potential
adoption rate, (viii) institutional capacity, and (ix) participation of other institutions of the
national system, and international cooperation. Also considered were factors such as equity,
number of farmers, effects on use of resources such as land, labor and capital, the magnitude
of the effects on productivity, costs of production, and quality; and sustainability including
contribution to sustainable agriculture and to conservation of the environment.

(1) Drafting Pre-Proposals

After the topics were prioritized based on consensus in the discussions among
researchers and stakeholders, then the researcher teams formulated pre-proposals to address
the problems/opportunities selected.

The encouragement to form multidisciplinary integrative teamwork in relation to major
problems/opportunities in order to achieve potential impact, was reflected in the resulting 56
Mega-projects.

e) Relevance of Pre-Proposals

There was external participation and consultant validation in meetings with RACS and
WGS. These took place in the experiment stations where the Programs are conducted.

There were several meetings with the RACS and expanded WGS during the process,
offering continuity of participation in the discussion of the relevant problems/opportunities

for the next MTIP.

211

In November 1996, the progress of the on-going process and the ideas for Projects were
summarized and shared with the involved stakeholders. These ideas were presented by
researcher leaders, and discussed in open consideration with group members.

In order to quantify the feed-back, the opinions of the participants about the relevance of
these ideas, and suggestions to include them in the list, were collected and analyzed
(November 1996).

This opportunity, even to add and incorporate some that might have been left out during
the process, illustrates that the methodology applied tried to assure that participants could
review their contributions in the final MTIP.

These ideas of Projects, elaborated by teamwork of Regional Advisory Councils and
extended Working Groups at the five Experiment Stations, were generally accepted by
them, as shown in Table 5.4. These judgements were expressed during the discussion in the
meetings, and were reflected in the survey conducted at that time. The means values were
defined by the stakeholders (as they are agricultural research’s client and customer). The
values assigned by stakeholders are high for most of the ideas. That is clear in the modes,
which are between 5 and 6, with a maximum of 7.

In the case of the rice sector, with a very positive experience in collaborative research
during the last years (Echeverria et a1, 1989). there was meaningful participation by farmers
and mill representatives at the regional level in the Experiment Station in the planning
process. The delegates of the Rice Growers Association and the Millers Association sent a
letter to INIA after this consultant process, expressing “our fixll conformity with the final
presentation of the researchers about the ideas of research projects for the next plan, which

was under consideration in several instances in the RAC and WG. We consider very

212

valuable all these instances carried out and the discussion about planning in the framework
of a good or effective development of the research in the cultivation of rice” (August 6,
1997)

This stakeholder participation during the planning process is critical. The recent USDA
Stakeholder input requirements for recipients of agricultural research, education, and
extension formula funds, is an outstanding example in the USA. The Department of
Agriculture, through the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
(C SREES), introduced the requirement for land-grant institutions that receive agricultural
research, extension, or education formula fixnds to establish a process for stakeholder input
on the uses of such fixnds, reporting annually to CSREES the actions taken to encourage
stakeholder input and a brief statement of the process used by a recipient institution to

identify individual or groups as stakeholders and to collect input fiom them (USDA, 1999).

Table 5.4 External Stakeholder's Opinions on the relevance of pre-proposals of Projects
to be included in the MT 1P (1997-2001). RACS and WGS.

 

 

 

Projects Mean St. Dev. Mode
Cereals and Oils l3 4.3-6.2 1.7-0.8 5-7
Rice 9 4.9-6.6 1.2-0.5 5-7
Animal Production 20 47-59 16-1.4 5-7
Horticulture l 1 4.7-6.0 l .2-1.0 4-6
Fruit 15 4.8-6.2 1.1-1.0 4-7
Forestry 5 4.9-6.2 1.2-0.9 5-7

 

213

 

f) Approval of the overall Medium Term Indicative Plan.

Finally, the Board of Directors, approved the Medium Term Indicative Plan, with
adjustments, for the next 5 years, in December 1997. After a final review, they were
published.

In summary:

The probable scenarios for the integrated agro-industrial chains were established,
considering the tendencies of relevant critical factors in the external environment analysis.

From the internal environment analysis, the discussion of relevant technological themes
advanced significantly.

Strategic Areas of intervention for INIA were established, as main “windows of
demands”. Later on, the possible themes with the most potential impact for INIA were
defined, identifying the principal technological limitations.

The proposals for Projects were formulated taking into account the technological
limitations in order to carry out this demand—driven approach.

Then the research projects were defined, looking for large projects, concentrating on
efforts to increase the probability of success, and consequently, the necessity of teamwork
formation.

Finally, areas, themes, and projects related to commodities were identified.

Given the steps described, a demand-driven process was followed to assure the

stakeholder’s opinion as a main input in planning.

214

5.6 Research Agenda

The research agenda had introduced fundamental changes. As the President said
(Bonino, P., 1997): “the changes in the world in the last years are faster, our external reality
is in permanent change, and new technological concepts and methods have been
introduced in agriculture. Productivity considered as a single objective has evolved
toward sustainable development and environmental protection. The scientific community
has internationalized the concern for environment preservation, including genetic
biodiversity, soil, water, and atmosphere. On the other hand, the biotechnology, the
information, and the basic sciences have had advances and continuous application in
agriculture, stimulating the private sector participation to create and use highly
appropriate technologies. Also, the influence of consumers, through the quality of the
products and processes, has increasing importance in the markets, and this appears as a

threat than can be converted to an opportunity for Uruguay”.

5.6.1 Policies and Strategies
The principal policies and institutional strategies determined at the final stage of the
strategic planning, after the internal and external discussion, represent a framework for

INIA’s fixture actions. They were the following:

0 To take into consideration Quality in all forms, in agricultural products and services,

processes, and institutional management, as required to expand the markets.

215

To contribute to the preservation of the natural resources and environment as well as
the sustainability of agricultural production, broadening horizons for the long term
for their growth.

To continue considering the productive intensification of the different agricultural
sub-sectors.

To improve the identification and prioritization of demand for technology, in order to
establish a client-oriented, demand-driven research agenda.

To strengthen the linkage among various components of the agriculture - industrial
continuum, allowing for their increasing integration with primary production.

To adapt the research to the changes produced as a consequence of the “opening” of
the national and regional economies, and the globalization of the markets.

To establish more partnerships (strategic alliances, joint ventures, networks) at the
national, regional and international level to promote a more efficient development of
the technologies, optimizing resources, and making complementary use of the
different institutional capabilities.

To promote international technical cooperation and the relationship with centers of
excellence at the world level, pursuing matching interest, mutual benefits, and
complementary resources.

To construct an institutional image, consolidated through bridges of communication
with broad sectors of the society, including those not directly related to the

agricultural sector.

216

5.6.2 Quality

INIA is giving priority to quality issues. Some examples include:

INIA has reinforced the continuous improvement process and is working with ISO
9000 and 14000 in some specific processes, such as, seed production and biotechnology
laboratory.

It is participating actively in the National Quality Committee, as a member of it with
Ministries and the National Quality Laboratory (LATU).

INIA and LATU are both supporting and financing the implementation of the
Uruguayan System of Accreditation, Normalization, Certification, Calibration and
Testing (SUAN CE).

INIA has been designated by the Uruguayan Association of Enterprise for Quality and
Excellence (AUECE), as an institutional member, based on the effort and encouragement
for quality at the national level.

Increasing quality requirements from final consumers are translated to the primary
agricultural sector through the industrial and export sector. The required tracebility of the
products by consumers in international markets are forcing producers to identify the
origin of the animals in the system of production, and through the agro-industrial chain.
At this moment this is critical with meat for the European Union.

_ This is why Uruguay has to strengthen the linkages among various components of the
agriculture-industrial continuum, allowing for their increasing integration with primary
production.

This relationship between the constituents of the agro-industrial continuum, is

facilitated by the mechanism of round-tables, promoted by INIA. These involve

217

representatives of all actors interested in a Specific product during production, processing,
and commercialization to final consumers. At the moment, there are round-tables on

barley for beer, wheat, rice, and forestry.

5.6.3 Sustainability and Environmental Concern

Agricultural research in Uruguay has a long tradition of considering sustainability of
the systems of production. An example is the rotational systems evaluation established in
INIA La Estanzuela since 1963. The idea of rotational systems, based on integrating and
complementing grass-legume pastures with crops, has been extensively adopted by
farmers in Uruguay. The success of this practice, beyond the effects on the productivity
of the whole system, is essentially based on the economy of nitrogen fertilizers and
chemicals for crop protection.

In the last three years, there also has been in collaboration with LATU and farmers, a
study on rice production, analysing residual effects of agro-chemicals in grain, soil and
water. This type of monitoring, preventing contamination and pollution is spreading to
another types of systems of production.

INIA has introduced in the Projects in the MTIP, what is called “green page”, setting
indicators to be measured in relation to the impact on natural resources (positive and
negative) and the environment, as well as sustainability in the long term. This refers to
effects from the execution of the projects and from the application of their results.

As a concrete response to this need, INIA is considering incorporating an

Environmental Unit in the new organizational structure. It will be implemented in the

218

matrix structure, including the main disciplines related to it (soil, water, agro-

climatology, environmental economy, biological control).

5.6.4 New Technologies for Agricultural Research

After a specific evaluation of the Biotechnology Unit conducted in 1997, in which the
author was involved, this area was reorganized. A new coordinator was recruited, and it
is strengthening the biotechnology research capacity, in the context of the national
strategy. Biotechnologists are linked with plant breeders, incorporating the breeding
programs techniques, such as marker-assisted breeding, tissue culture, and PCR.
Biosafety is an increasing concern, considering risk assessment for releasing transgenic
materials, and the technical, commercial and political implications. The protection of
intellectual property rights, international trade (Uruguay is member of UPOV), licensing,
and policy issues related to technology transfer are increasingly analyzed and studied in
INIA.

In communication, INIA is developing a growing plan. It is connected internally and
on the intemet, with an average of 1.4 computers per researcher. The programs needed
for research (general and specific software), and intensive internal and specialized
training for researchers and support staff are in place. INIA’s site on the web, since
1995, has received an increasing number of visitors. Information systems are applied to
research activities, laboratories, geographic information systems, services and
institutional management, integrating research projects, administration and the human

resources data base.

219

5.6.5 Partnership

INIA is strengthening partnerships with public and private organizations, at the
national and international level, seeking for collaborative projects on developing
technologies of common interest, complementing in a synergistic way the use of
institutional capabilities and resources.

A key mechanism to coordinate effective collaborative research is through the
Agricultural Technology Development Fund (FPTA). In the Law creating INIA it was
introduced as a new way of strengthening collaborative research carried out between
INIA researchers and outside researchers. It was established stipulates that INIA must
reserve 10% of its core funds annually to contract research with other organizations as an
average target. This is complementary to INIA’s own research, and a researcher of INIA
is the counterpart responsible for monitoring and evaluation of the research.

The FPTA has been instrumental for INTA as the key coordinator of the Uruguayan
NARS, and it has strengthened collaboration with international organizations, such as
CIMMYT and foreign Universities. FPTA’s strength lies particularly in establishing and
reinforcing strategic alliances, and in responding with greater flexibility to demands from
farmers and stakeholders. INIA has over 77 Projects and contracts with more than 25
institutions.

In the next INIA/[IDB Project II, the partnership will be reinforced. Based on the
FPTA mechanisms, these will be competitive funds and research topics will be developed
in strategic alliances with international centers.

Regarding alliances, INIA is trying to commercialize research products when it is

convenient, developing joint ventures with private sector where the opportunity for

220

production of appropriate technology exists, sharing fixnding responsibilities. INIA is
doing joint ventures to complement the structure and experience of private companies for
marketing, multiplication and massive distribution of research results. Such was the case
of new cultivars released by the plant breeding programs of the Institute. When the new
cultivar is ready, INIA calls through media for a public competition for this arrangement,
considering royalties offered and background of the private firms.

INIA is also complementing efforts in some areas of common interest, in which the
specialized human resources and infrastructure of the Institute combine with operative
costs provided by funds from the private sector. One example is the case of malting
companies financing research in the public sector to improve the malting quality of
barley for the export. There is an agreement to COOperate on improving malting quality
Signed by INIA, the Faculty of Agronomy, the Technology Laboratory, and four malting
companies. Because of the export orientation, the malting quality of barley provides
significant value added. The results were new varieties developed and management
practices recommended that improve malting quality.

This type of agreement to complement resources of private sector was also
successfully developed with rice growers and dairy farmers, including the industrial
sector (mills and factories).

These joint ventures between public and private sector organizations, in which costs
and benefits are shared, may provide additional fixnds to INTA, but the public-good
character of the research organizations and the fact that the farmers are co—funding the

research conducted, have to be carefixlly considered.

221

The growing number of national (universities, farmers associations, public and private
organizations) and international agreements signed by INIA give an idea of the diversity
of areas and institutions.

The technical international cooperation with centers of excellence at the international
level (mainly universities and international centers of the CGIAR) are on the Web site of
INIA in Internet (www.inia.org.uy).

In brief, INTA iS promoting international technical cooperation and the relationship
with centers of excellence at the world level, pursuing matching interests, mutual
benefits, and complementary resources, by using FPTA, and MOUs for bilateral
relationships with universities and research institutes, country’s agencies (USA, NZ:
Australia; Canada, UK, Holland, Spain, France, Germany, Japan), technical financial
agencies (IDB,WB), and active participation in regional Programs (PROCISUR, IICA,
FONTAGRO)

By reason of co-funding projects with the international centers (CIMMYY, CIP,
CIAT / FLAR, the three centers in the Latin American region, also ISNAR, IFPRI),
Uruguay got a Seat as an Observer, and is becoming active member in CGIAR, since

October 1998 (CGIAR, 1998).

5.6.6 Institutional Image
A survey on attitudes and behaviors was conducted in the rural areas. The results
shown that INIA is well known and that most of the farmers identify with INIA’s

objectives (Equipos, 1997).

222

Based on the identified need to construct an institutional image, consolidated through
bridges of communication with broad sectors of the society, including those not directly
related to the agricultural sector (the rural but also urban society), INIA has developed a
strategy based on massive media, and since the last couple of years other mechanisms,
such as participation in Agricultural Active Expo-Show in different regions of the
country. Last year in the main national Agro-Industrial Expo in the capital city,
organized by the Uruguayan Rural Association, (600,000 visitors in two weeks, including
from foreign countries), INIA has its first participation with a booth and other activities
(video-conferences through all the country from there, active laboratories demonstrations,
measurements related to productive parameters in animals, open discussions with farmers
interested in round tables, and tours for schools). INIA’s President, at the opening,
expressed the Board satisfaction to be present. He spoke about “why (it is necessary that
the whole society know what is INIA, what it does in benefit of the country, ....as the
symbol of the indispensable technological autonomy that any country must have) and
how rather for its ideas than for its structure, because our capital are the ideas and the
knowledge, our power relies on creativity, seeking for new ideas, in the permanent
purpose to move ahead our technological frontier), the challenge, then, is to Show
austerity in the materials and richness of thought, because this also is a national symbol”.
(President of INIA, Bonino, P. 1998). INIA got the highest award, registered the most
visitors, gaining enormous repercussion through the media. This INIA presentation is a
good example of collaborative multidisciplinary teamwork, in the proposal,
implementation and functioning. It was evaluated as a positive process, involving the

Board, Directors, leaders, researchers, diffusers, and support staff. Therefore, this

223

successfixl participative process in a very professional context, has had external
repercussion and also internal to foster spirit of the corps, and contributing to go in depth
in the cultural transformation toward teamwork, as well as to strengthen the sense of

belongness and identification with INIA.

224

CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSION

In the introduction of this dissertation the problem statement and research questions
were described. Chapter II dealt with the related literature review, including the
proposed framework and the protocol for collaborative action research. The context of
the case study was described in Chapter III, and the methodology utilized to implement
the framework, in Chapter IV. The findings from the processes were presented in
Chapter V. This final Chapter provides a summary of the main conclusions driven by the
research questions, some reflections and fixrther implications, external evidence related to

this process and research limitations.

6.1 Summary
Some conclusions can be drawn from several questions that have driven this research.

They are as follows:

1. From a structural approach, how to assess the effectiveness, efi‘iciency and quality
of agricultural research activities?

In relation to organizational performance, a methodology was developed to assess
effectiveness, efficiency, quality and relevance, adapting the CIPP model, including self-

evaluation for researchers themselves (effectiveness, and efficiency), leaders of Areas and

225

Programs (effectiveness, efficiency, and quality), external peer evaluation (quality), and
stakeholders (relevance). Instruments were created for data collection and analysis.

All these parameters of organizational performance were ranked with high scores. The
Collaborative Evaluation Process gave valuable information about organizational
effectiveness, efficiency, methodological rigor and relevance, and became a main
programmatic input for internal environment analysis, to create the permanent ascendant
spiral cycle of continuous improvement.

As a consequence of the process a new guide for project proposals was developed,
incorporating constituents for later monitoring during the execution and ex — post

evaluation of the results.

2. From a systemic approach, to what extent are stakeholders involved in supporting
the research programs to ensure that the research undertaken is what is needed?
Is the institutional ability to respond to client demands increasing?

Stakeholders in INIA are deeply involved in several ways. Responsible stakeholders are
contributing significantly to the budget, matching the government with at least a similar
amount. The farmers’ associations have delegates in equal number with the government in
the Board of Directors. These stakeholders have been collaborating in strategic planning
with the researchers over a long period of time, discussing all issues in an iterative process.
There were formal opportunities for stakeholders’ opinions on the relevance of the first ideas
of pre-proposals. Priorities were set in this collaborative way with the objective of
addressing relevant problems. There was evidence of a demand-driven approach.

INIA had a clear transition in this process, passing from a deliberative approach,

submitting proposals to the RACS and WGS for approval, to a demand-driven approach,

226

started by defining the priorities problems/opportunities and then formulating proposals
by the researchers to solve problems or to take advantage of opportunities.

INIA is improving its organizational capacity, and has developed a modem
infrastructure in buildings and equipment, and improved their human resources, mainly at
the level of postgraduates. This is essential to address the challenge to respond to

increasing demand, but at the same time, is defining the fixture resource allocation.

3. From a human resource approach, how is the stafl involved how is their
interest/commitment strengthened and how does the institution respond to their
interest?

The researcher staff has been involved in the evaluation and strategic planning,
throughout the whole process. All personnel were involved in the internal organizational
diagnostic, and the most relevant needs were expressed. They also participated in
developing the continuous improvement process, based on the main problems identified
previously. All staff collaborated in the process of the reformulation of the human resources

areas. Data from a survey at the end of the process Show that the personnel considered it to

be a very positive experience. The methodology is continuing for the fixture.

4. From a learning organization approach, what is the organizational commitment
and capacity for learning? How are the mental openness for generative learning,
the shared mission and vision inspiring the fixture, the system thinking view, and
teamwork learning developing?

INIA has been applying the strategic planning methodology, first analyzing the external

environment (threats and opportunities), and then the internal environmental analysis

(strengths and weaknesses). Scenarios, taking into account tendencies of the critical factors

227

and premises, were considered (proactive approach). A Shared mission and vision were
formulated and validated jointly by stakeholders and staff. The learning process teamwork
for continuous improvement was established and reinforced by INIA’ 5 Board of Directors.
Teams tackled the main constraints identified by the initial participative diagnosis. INIA is

practicing the disciplines of learning organizations.

5. From an ecological approach, how are the linkages with other organizations
improving? How is the collaborative mode (internal multidisciplinarity and
external networking) increasing? How are sustainability, environment, and quality
issues taken into account in the research agenda?

INIA is encouraging partnerships, developing strategic alliances with public and private
national and international organizations (centers of excellence). The FPTA, which
represents 10% of the INTA total budget, has been demonstrated to be very usefixl for
promoting outside linkages, and in seeking synergistic complementarities.

The new strategic planning process promoted multidisciplinarity, creating mega-projects
of greater potential impact, and increasing the number of disciplines, researchers, and
commodities per project. The research teams discussed from the beginning planning,
defining and taking decisions by consensus.

The research agenda has changed. From a restricted focus on a productivity approach,
INIA’s research agenda has evolved, after carefixl analysis of the strategic planning, towards

a more complex agenda, including intensification of the production but also building heavily

on the concept of sustainability, and concern for the environment, quality, and food safety.

228

The agenda was incorporated with emphasis on an agro-industrial approach, taking
into account the increasingly more exigent requirements of final consumers through the
industrial sectors.

Even though in LAC the NARSs budgets are in general decreasing, INIA has been
increasing the diversified resources available, without objection fi'om farmers, and
without interference in the funds allocated fi'om the public central adnrinistration,
showing farmer and political support.

INIA is increasingly concerned and working to improving its image. According to
external sources from the last years, stakeholders have an excellent image and opinion of

INIA.

6.2 Reflections and Further Implications
Implementation of the framework:

It was feasible to implement the proposed framework in the case of INIA. However,
it should be noted that this case study was developed in a particularly favorable
environmental context, making it possible to engage in organizational development based
on collaborative participation and to gain accountability progressively.

The main factors were:

1) The country

Uruguay has traditionally had a strong democratic system, which encourages
participation of people in organizational issues. It is increasingly involved at national
level in an international open economy consolidating a regional common market

(MERCOSUR).

229

There is a growing favorable consensus about the important role of technology in
agricultural development, and the need of incorporating it in the system of production to
compete successfixlly in increasingly international markets.

Uruguay has been characterized by a firm political, social and economic stability
during recent last years. It has a high educational level of the population, an equitable
income distribution, and social capital investment, in comparison with other countries in
the region.

There has been remarkable improvement in the quality of products, services and
processes in the agro-industrial chain, and increasing concern for environmental impact,

natural resource preservation, and sustainable development.

2) The law creating of INIA

It gave importance to the role of technology in relation to agricultural sector
development, and has provided great potential power to the new autonomous
organization. This type of legal entity is a key requirement to formulate and to
implement a collaborative participative process of organizational development. It is
based on the principles of co-participation of both government and farmers in directing
and financing the Institute, increasing the resources assigned to agricultural research.

INIA operates as a private organization with an effective administrative and
operational decentralization through the creation of RACS, and later the WGS,
fimctioning as antennas advising in the diagnosis as well as in the technology transfer to

solve these needs. It is an organization with reasonable size but with great capacity for

230

external articulation, creating the FPT A for strategic alliances with other public and

private, national and international organizations.

3) The leadership commitment

INIA's Board of Directors had the initiative to conduct this process and sponsored
this study, to analyze the relationship with the external and internal environment,
organizational performance, capacity and motivation.

The Board continues leading and supporting the on going process providing

continuity, and gaining trust and reliability.

4) Stakeholder and staff interest and experience in collaborating

An effective participation of external responsible stakeholders as well as internal staff
in the process and in the institutional decision making was present. This collaboration is
vital for gaining institutional accountability and fostering a long-term sustainable cultural
and financial organizational transformation. The Institute is currently opened to learn,
involving staff and stakeholders, in a proactive approach, to rapidly reposition INIA in

response to context changes, avoiding doing more of the same.

Lessons learned from this experience:
The collaborative strategic planning methodology had internalized a proactive
approach and new concepts leading to culture transformation and a widespread effect in

the organization. To involve the external stakeholders and the internal staff in the

231

exercise, and to understand how the process works, is probably more important than the
results themselves.

This process also put in practice a new approach, starting with demand identification.
Consideration of current and future demands required listening to the farmers, first about
relevant problems, and then about future scenarios, and opportunities. Then, proposals
were formulated based on the priorities. It was an effective tool to think and act
strategically in order to shape INIA’s fixture.

Key actors must be involved in this process. This requires the strong inclusion of
members of the Board, National and Regional Directors, National Coordinator
Committee, leaders of Areas and Programs, researchers, all internal support staff, and
outstanding stakeholders. This type of collaboration is sometimes considered too time
consuming for very busy persons. It has a high transaction cost, but it is worthwhile

The participation of internal staff encouraged their commitment to the organization,
and a better understanding of what is happening and what is being planned, how it is
being planned, and, particularly, why it is being planned.

The participation of external stakeholders strengthened their involvement and support,
and also provided a better understanding and a sense of caring about the specific
requirements of agricultural research.

All participants, internal and external were learners in this process. But at the same
time, they were shaping the fixture participative process to be developed in INTA. The
participation in this process helped to improve communication, which is often one of the
weakest factors in organizational behavior, and was identified as such in the case of

INIA.

232

An excess of meetings should also be avoided. The number of meetings can be
reduced by improving their effectiveness. Some draft documents can be prepared by
small teams to be distributed prior to the meetings, with enough time to be studied, but
only as inputs for the open discussion that needs to be done.

A reasonable timetable, including a tentative deadline, should be set and
accomplished. In this particular experience, the strategic planning took more time than
was expected.

At the same time, it appears to be necessary to conduct this process more frequently,
because of the turbulent and rapid changes in the external environment. Therefore, this
process might be better if shorter but reviewed more often.

The agenda of activities has to be established early and must consider all other
relevant activities. For the participation of farmers, in particular, the overlapping with
multiple agricultural tasks which require presence at the farm (such as planting,
harvesting, pest control, sheep shearing, milking cows) has to be considered.

It was threatening for some researchers to submit progress reports to the CARS and
WGS to evaluate their relevance. It also was threatening for some researchers to be
exposed to an ex-ante external peer review evaluation. The risk of sharing ideas for
proposals with other researchers who may compete for fixnds, and the bias where there is
small critical mass of researchers, suggests that it may be useful to discuss in internal
seminars and to include foreign experts. Comprehensive external reviews are planned for
the fixture, starting at the level of Programs.

Regional Advisory Committees and Working Groups have a great potential

contribution to make to INIA. During these meetings, even though general satisfactory

233

participation was expressed, there were suggestions from members to improve the

functions of these important organs for INIA.

The new research agenda:

The increasing concern of the final consumers, both for health and environmental
conditions, represents an Opportunity for export-oriented countries, like Uruguay, through
marketing strategies and research with an ecological approach, committed to the
development of its own natural resources. The systems of production based on processes
in harmony with the natural cycles, resulting in natural products, will be able to meet an
acceptable environmental and natural resources cost. Consumers will put pressure on
organizations for environmental management reconversion (ecolabels), and increasing
quality requirements of products, processes and management. A potential threat can be
transformed into an opportunity (strategic planning).

Economic globalization, regional trade blocks, sustainable development and
environmental problems are main elements of the world frame. The international standard
norms ISO 9000 and 14000 are embedded in this globalization process. Future
restrictions are expected, and countries that produce under negligent management
conditions of their natural resources, will be considered degrading the environment, with
the associated commercial consequences. A proactive approach, preventing these
problems is relevant for agro-export countries such as Uruguay, and it will be a major
competitive factor in the long term.

The Uruguayan research-extension challenge will be how to develop sustainable

agriculture, increasing productive capacity while conserving its resource base and taking

234

'_.

advantage of better prices for natural and organic products following consumer
preferences, and to design a system which could contribute to achieve society’s goals, in
terms of quantity and quality of food, considering environment and health.

The increasing importance of the relationship among environment, agro-industrial
activities, and international trade will affect agricultural research priorities. Based on the
relevance of establishing demand-oriented objectives, it is necessary to consider the
priorities of the different clients involved: productivity (farmers), quality of products

(industries), and environment (society).

6.3 External Evidence

There were some reports of external specialists from other studies in INIA, related to
some organizational issues analyzed in this research, and conducted during the same
period, mainly by ISNAR and IDB Project evaluation.

Considering the relationship of the knower to the known, the external evidence
contributes to explain the epistemological (philosophy of knowledge) question: “how

can be sure we know what we know?”

Organizational capacity:

The organizational capacity, analyzed during this process, was confirmed basically
by these external studies.

“INIA’s excellent infrastructure is another important strength of INIA Research
activities are supported by appropriate equipment, including modern information and

communication technologies. Buildings are in very good shape, partly due to a loan from

235

IDB. A major investment in these core resources has been made, but fixnding will be needed
to keep them operational in the fixture”. “The institute maintains strong human resources
adequate for the current demand. A substantial training program, supported by a loan from
the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), has had an important impact on the level of
research training” (Borges, 1998: 123).

INIA Uruguay is an example of an organization that changed its organization and
management and increased its budget through a combination of farmer fixnding and
matching state grants. This experience suggests it may be possible to find a sustainable
and client-driven public-private fixnding mix. Direct fixnding of research by farmers
contributes to the increase in the total fixnds available for research. When these are
matched by government fixnds, they provide a convenient vehicle for promoting a more
demand-driven research system, influencing research priorities. “To date, the most
ambitious arrangement for farmer firnding of research is found in Uruguay” (Echeverria
et a1, 1998:333).

The flexibility and agility in resource allocation and utilization, is a fixndamental
change given by creation of the Law of INIA, like in private sector. INTA Uruguay is an
example of the participation of the private sector in agricultural research, contributing to
make research systems more effective in forging improved new technologies
(Moscardi, 1992).

An evaluation of the IDB Project argues that “INIA has done important progress in
planning, starting with the MTOP and incorporating a more strategic vision to the
planning process in the MTIP. In relation to monitoring and evaluation, the methodology

that started developing represents an important background to the entire

236

institutionalization of a management system to guarantee the programmatic consistency
of all activities of INIA, including the relevance, quality (methodological rigor), and
measurements of performance, in terms of effectiveness and efficiency” (Vazquez
and Picemo, 1996:95).

A survey on a sample of researchers in INIA last year showed that the PM & E
capacity in INIA has improved from the past MTOP to the current MTIP, particularly in
planning, but also, in monitoring and evaluation, with values of 2.6, 1.9 and 1.8

respectively, measured on a scale from 0 to 3 (Horton et al., 1999).

Organizational motivation:

Borges pointed out that a very positive aspect motivating the organization’s current
performance was the process whereby it was established. “The idea of INIA began within
the past organization (CIAAB), and was discussed at length by researchers. The
participation of both staff members and key stakeholders in the design of the institute has
contributed to the development of organizational commitment. The prior research
experience of staff members contributed to a solid technical basis for the new institution.
INIA’s current mission is viewed as very positive in motivating performance. The
institute’s mission and objectives are strong motivators” (19982122).

Changes in the motivational dimension of the institution, from 1992 to 1997, has
shown high values, particularly in the staff participation in decision making (2.0), staff
identification with the institutional mission (2.0), and teamwork (1.7), measured on a

scale from 0 to 3 (Horton et al., 1999).

237

Culture:

“In general, there are excellent ethical values in the institute, a high level of respect for
the work of others, strong commitment to the organization, and good interpersonal
relationships. Nonetheless, two aspects that could be improved are integrated work teams
and integration with other institutions. For its employees, working for INIA means status
and career development. It would be hard to find another institution in Uruguay that offers
the same possibilities of training and excellent working conditions. Although organizational
commitment remains very high, the institute is in need of a method for performance
assessment that motivates staff by recognizing and rewarding individual achievements”
(Borges, 1998: 122).

According to Scheler (1996) the internal communication is a main weakness. INIA is
an institute that works with the minds of its employees, and it is important they feel

comfortable in their work environment.

Organizational performance:

High values in relevance, effectiveness and efficiency found in this study, are in
agreement with the results from the recent ISNAR case study (Borges). “It can be said that
INIA’s relevance is ascending. Client satisfaction is high. Today, the institute is a fiequent
object of discussion in producers’ associations, partly because of its performance and partly

because of the current international demand for technology” (1998: 124).

238

Partnerships:

“INTA is establishing more partnerships (strategic alliances, joint ventures, networks)
at the national, regional and international level, to promote a more efficient development
of the technologies, optimizing resources, and making complementary use of the different
institutional capabilities” (Scheler, 1996:12).

“INIA has found the FPTA an excellent tool to establish strategic alliances with other
agricultural research organizations and institutes in Uruguay and help coordinate their
research efforts and to achieve a multiplier for its own research efforts. ISNAR therefore
chose INIA’s FPTA as benchmark for other agricultural research organizations” (Hobbs

et al., 1998]).

Organizational image:

“INIA has an excellent image within the agricultural sector, which is strengthened by
producer participation on INIA’s boards and councils. The organization enjoys
substantial support from the agricultural producers’ organizations. ...... The stakeholder
environment at the level of producer’s organizations is very favorable for INIA.
Producers’ representatives participate in the Board and in the Regional Advisory
Committees and Working Groups, and this contributes to their feeling of belonging to the
institution” (Borges, 1998: 120)

“Regional Advisory Councils at each Experiment Station, known as the lungs of
INIA, provide an important forum for a regular exchange of views between farmers and
INIA staff”. The institute’s communication with the external environment is in a two-

way interaction. Researchers are into a intimate dialogue with both technology users and

239

policy makers to find out what their problems and aspirations really are, to understand
how they think, and to design their public relations accordingly”. The respondents
emphasize that the researchers of INIA who are working closely with farmers, are fixlly
aware of their public relations responsibilities. According to the respondents, the
policymakers have a good image of INIA. “The farmers have high expectations of INTA
as well. “ INIA has been able to break the image of the isolated researcher and change
this in a researcher that speaks the language of the farmers”. (Scheler, 199629)

In evaluation of the INIA/IDB Project, Vazquez and Picerno indicated that “the
important participation of farmers in the top management level (Board of Directors), and
in different organs of advising (RACS, and WGS), makes difficult to find a representative
vision from the farmer sector that could be independent of INIA. The general vision is
positive regarding the INIA performance, considering good to very good in all the cases
(farmers leaders and agronomists belonging to the main rural associations)” (1996:54).

The principal strengths were cited: institutional organization and structure,
participation of farmers at different levels, particularly at the Experiment Stations (RACS
and WGS), clear vocation and efforts done to link the research work with productive
reality, great effort for training of staff in the last years, products generated considered of
exceptional value to compete internationally (i.e. new cultivars released in crops), and
valuable efforts to improve technical publications. Within the weaknesses observed were:
insufficient coordination with extensionists to become more efficient in the use of
resources in the whole system, too much time of researchers allocated to diffusion tasks,
and to revalue the importance of economic analysis on the results of research (Vazquez

and Picerno, 1996).

240

6.4 Research Limitations

Some limitations could be identified in this study:

The author of the study has been involved in the coordination of much of the work.
Familiarity contributes to knowing the organization and the process in depth, but at the
same time has the potential for a subjective perspective towards a favorable view of the
findings.

There is an assumption that farmer delegates on the Board, Regional Advisory
Committees and Working Groups are, in fact, representative of the opinions of farmers
on relevant issues in the agricultural sector.

Timing may be an issue. This on going process should be evaluated in’the long term,
but this particular study had to be completed within a given period of time.

Overlapping with other proper activities of the Institute may occasionally interfere

with representativeness.

241

APPENDICES

242

EVALUATION
MEDIUM TERM OPERATIVE PLAN

1992/1996

 

 

 

 

 

THEME UNIT. ...............................

 

PROGRAM ................................................................. AREA ...............................

 

 

 

Please fill the required information: indicating the. number, which to your
understanding, is the best representation of the following aspects:

 

In order to determine in which stage of execution the Project is right now,
indicate the trimester related to:

 

. Starting implementation - (A), (add another year if necessary)
0 Finishing execution (collecting and analyzing data) - (B)
. Presentation of final report- (C), (add another year if necessary)

 

I 1996 I

1992 l 1993 l 1994 l 1995
31411::er

112l3|41112 3|4|1|2 3|4l1|2 3|4Ii|2
' ‘,1 i 111‘:.;Qi 'i,. .1.1. ,ifl I '

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

243

 

.....................

The problem identification has been mainly by initiative of: (mark in order
of importance up to 3):

  

 

 

Explicit suggestion by the Working Group

Explicit suggestion by the Regional Advisory Committee
Induced proposal by the researchers of the Project
Induced proposal by the Program

Induced proposal by the Scientific Committee

Induced proposal by Consultants

Others (Specify)

 

 

 

 

 

rI-I'I‘I-“i‘I‘I-I-I'
........

_________ In the conceptualization and formulation of the Project during the
programmingprocess, to what extent have contributed to the discussions:

 
  

 

 

 

Scale: 1=Very Low I I I l l l I
7=VeryHigh 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Scientific Committee
Consultants

Program

Discipline

Experiment Station

Working Group

Regional Advisory Committee
Others (Specify)

 

 

 

 

 

“2; In case of formal modifications to execution of the project, indicate to what

22253222522235 extent the following has affected:

 

 

Scale: 1=Very Low I I I a 2 2 l
7=VeryHigh 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

Suggestions by Area

Suggestions by Program

Post-graduate Studies of a researcher

Changes in Scientific staff

Reduction in Technicians and Support Staff

New bibliographic information

Information outcome from the execution of the Project
Changes in demands from production sector (RAC, WG)
Availability of financial resources

Technical error in the planning process

Others (Specify)

 

 

 

 

244

 

“I: To what extent were the following aspects improved as a consequence of
the formal modifications:

 

 

 

 

Scale: 1=Very Low I I I I I I I
7=VeryHigh 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Objectives

Hypothesis

Methodology

Strategy

Working Team

Period or Term of execution

 

 

 

 

 

:22; To what extent were the explicit technical-programmatic goals
accomplished by the results obtained?

|||||||||

 
 

 

 

Scale: 1= None
7= Totally I I I I I I I

 

 

 

 

 

.....................

  

 

I and those executed effective/y.

 

Expected Modified

 

 

Experiments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.;.;.'.;.~.;.'.j.-.j.
.....

Indicate the number of initial diffusion activities, formal modifications and
those executed effectively

   

 

 

Expected Modified

 

 

INIA Publications

 

External Publications

 

Seminars, meetings and courses

 

 

 

 

 

Field Days
Diffusion meetings
Videos

 

 

 

 

245

 

91 How many researchers are involved in the Prg’ect?

 

Initial N°

 

Present N°

 

 

 

 

What is the estimation of the present total time allocated by the
__ researchers involved in the Project (add time percentages and ”Press
it dividing by 100)?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*' What are the total operative resources allocated to the Project,
" expressed in American dollars?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

' ' Taking into account the difficulties to determine efficiency (i. e. effectivity
' related to cost) in the research activities, express your evaluation of the
efficiency of the Project.

 

 

 

Scale: 1=Very Low I I I I I I I
7=VeryHigh 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

 

 

 

 

How do you distribute the specialization composition of the Project
technical team?

 

 

 

Number of Disciplines

Number of Commodities

 

 

 

 

246

 

 
  

 

In what way has each of the following factors limited the execution of
93 the proposed experimental activities?

 

 

Scale:

1 = Not limited I I I I I I I
7 = Very limited 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

Climatic conditions
Availability of Materials
Financial resources
Bibliographic information
Administrative support
Physical infrastructure
Equipment

Vehicles

Gasoline

Per diem

Scientific staff
Researcher out of country for training
Support staff

Bird damage

Others (Specify)

 

 

 

 
  

 

“ Which are the mechanisms that you consider more effective for diffusion
of the Project results (mark in order of importance up to 3):

 

 

Technical Communications

Presentation in congresses and seminars
Internal seminars

Visits to farmers and extensionists
Training

Field Days

Technical meetings

Scientific articles or papers

Articles in newspapers and magazines of diffusion
Interviews on radio and TV

Videos

Others (Specify)

 

 

247

 

 

 

  

 

In order to improve the Project, indicate the importance of the need to
’ increase the following resources:

 

 

Scale: 1= Very Low I I I

 

7= Very High 1 2 3

Field equipment

Laboratory equipment

Laboratory inputs or chemical reagents
Greenhouses

Informatics equipment or computer hardware
Informatics consultants

Statistics consultants

Economic analysis consultants

Library access

Specialty consultants

Vehicles

Gasoline

Scientific staff

Field support staff

Administrative staff

Scientific staff training

Support staff training

Training in Project formulation (PM&E)
Programmatic structure

Operational structure

Administrative functioning

Materials acquisition

Coordination meeting frequencies
Coordination meeting dynamics
Discipline interaction

Diffusion channels

Others (Specify)

 

 

 

.............

  

 

How do you consider the effects of the Projects in relation to preservation
of the following natural resources?

 

 

Scale: (-3) =Totally unfavorable I I . . . . .
(-3) (-2) (-1) 0 (+1) (+2) (+3)

0 = Neutral
(+3) = Totally favorable
Soil
Water
Atmosphere
Genetics Resources

 

 

248

 

 

 

   

:32. Principal products generated by the Project are related to (mark in
order of importance up to 3):

 

 

Cultivar creation delivery

Agricultural production technology
Product processing and post-harvest
Equipment and machinery

Others (Specify)

 

 

 

 

 

 

-----------------

The Project objectives are fundamentally oriented to increase (mark
in order of importance up to 3):

...........................

   

 

 

Productivity

Profitability

Product Quality
Sustentability
Environmental Protection

 

 

 

 

 

I How would you classify the principal orientation of your Project:

 

. Scientific (contribution to scientific knowledge)
Technological (adaptation and validation of technology)
Transference (diffusion of available knowledge)

Others (Specify)

 

 

 

 

 

  

g3; The results obtained mainly contribute to solve needs of the following
i-éééla2222;222:222? immediate users (mark in order of importance up to 3) :

..............

 

 

Farmers

Transformation industry of agricultural products
Input suppliers

Consumers

Extensionists

Policy makers

Government agencies

Other researchers (other area of study)

Others (Specify)

 

 

 

 

249

 

 

' Results obtained tend fundamental/y to:

 

 

 

. Solve present needs
. Make knowledge available for future needs

 

 

 

 

 

The scope of results of the Project is:

 

 

 

Zone of influence
National

Regional Southern Cone
Disciplinary

Others (Specify)

 

 

 

 

 

” In which stage of maturity the process of technological development

 

 

would you rank the Project?

 

Phase 1= High opportunity for impact; high risk; exploration or starting
Phase 4 = Low opportunity for impact; low risk; improving and adjusting,

diffusion of results

 

 

Maturity /
,//
/’/,
,x//
x'//,
///
///
/
1 2 4
Time
__—.>

 

 

250

'-'

 

Considering an analysis of future needs, identify the likely action:

 

 

 

Finishing the Project with the obtained results and diffusing them

Reforrnulating it
Continuing it without modifications

Others (Specify)

 

 

 

 

 

Add comments and suggestions on criteria for Monitoring and Evaluating
€951??? that you consider convenient to introduce in the next Planning:

 

 

 

 

 

 

251

 

A

   
   
 
 
 

pendix

   

EVALUATION
MEDIUM TERM OPERATIVE PLAN

1992/1996

 

 

 

 

 

 

CODE ............................
TITLE .................
THEME UNIT ........................
PROGRAM. AREA ...............................

 

 

 

 

Please fill the required information, indicating the number, which to your
understanding, is the best representation of the following aspects:

 

To what extent have the expected results (outcomes or products) been
2 accomplished, considering all the activities of the Project globally ?

Scale: 1= 0-10%

 

2 = 10-30%
3 = 30—50% I I I I I I I
4 = 50-70% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5 = 70-90%
6 = 90—99%

7 = 100% (Final Report)

 

 

252

 

2 To what extent have the mechanisms applied for diffusion or transfer of

 

 

 

the results (outcomes or products) of the Project been effective:
Scale: 1= Very Low I I I I I I I
7= Very High 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

 

 

 

.....................

3 Taking into account the difficulties of determining the efficiency (relation

  

 

 

 

express your ranking of the efficiency of the Project.
Scale: 1 = Very Low I I I I I I I
7 = Very High 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

 

 

 

“ 1;; How do you judge the size of the Project, in terms of the resources
allocated to achieve the planned objectives ?

 

 

 

Scale: (-3)= Very reduced
0 = Appropriate ' ' ' ' ' ' '

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
 

 

 

 

(+3)= Very large (5) (12) {-1) 6 (+1) (42) (is)
5 Indicate to what extent the results (outcomes or products) obtained by the
Project contribute to accomplishin‘Lme objectives of the Theme Area.
Scale: 1: Very Low I I I I I I I
7: Very High 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6 In turn, indicate to what extent the results (outcomes or products)
25 obtained at the level of the Theme Area contribute to accomplishing
the objectives of the Program.
Scale: 1: Very Low I I I I I I I
7: Very High 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

 

 

253

 

 

 

 

 

;-::;:§'; In relative terms within the Program, what is the importance that you

23:3;22222222; give to this Project:

 

 

 

Scale: 1=Very Low I I I I I I I
7=VeryHigh 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

 

 

8 Which is the grade of fit and the internal structural consistency for each

35522225232222? one of the following methodological aspects :

 

 

Scale: 1=Very poorfit I I I I I I I
7=Verygoodflt 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

a. The title of the Project reflects what has been done.

 

b. The general methodology of the Project showed validity in the
execution and in accomplishment of the planned objectives.

 

c. Data collection and statistical analysis showed validity in
accomplishment the planned objectives.

 

d The conclusions drawn are operational to the originally
planned objectives.

 

e. The applied strategy is valid to accomplish the planned
objectives of the Project.

 

f. The proposed term for the execution of the Project has
been reasonable to accomplish the planned objectives.

 

g. The utilization of the scientific-technical information reviewed
related to the topic of research is relevant and up-dated.

 

 

254

 

 

 

9 What value do you give to the quality of the publications produced by the

 

 

 

U)
o
2
F?
—L
II II

Very Low I I I I I I I
Very High 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

 

 

 

How would you rank the results of the Project?

 

 

 

 

Scale 1= Very Low I I I I I I I
7=VeryHigh 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

 

 

 

The obtained results contribute to solving needs mainly of the following
immediate users (mark in order of importance up to 3):

 

 

 

Farmers

Industry of transformation (processors)
Input suppliers

Consumers

Extensionists

Policy makers

Government agencies

Other researchers (other area of study)
Others (Specify)

 

 

 

255

 

" * In which stage of maturity of the process of technological development
% would you rank the Project?

  

 

 

.............

Phase 1 = High opportunity of impact, high risk; exploration or starting
Phase 4 = Low opportunity of impact, low risk; improving and adjusting,
diffusion of results

Maturity //

 

 

 

 

 

 

13 Considering an analytical projection prospective analysis, indicate the
like/ihOOd Of.’

   

 

 

Finishing the Project with the obtained results and diffusing them
Reforrnulating it

Continuing it without modifications

Others (Specify)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Add comments and suggestions on criteria for Monitoring and Evaluating
' that you consider convenient to introduce in the next Planning:

  

 

 

 

 

 

256

EVALUATION
MEDIUM TERM OPERATIVE PLAN

1992/1996

 

Based on your knowledge and the complementary information presented
(enclosed), we consider it very important and opportune to know your
perspective, of the relevance of the results obtained from the execution of the
Medium Term Operative Plan (MTOP). Therefore, please fill the required
information, indicating the number which, to your understanding, is the best
representation of your opinion on the importance of the following aspects:

 

Were you in knowledge of this information previously?

  
   

 

o No
0 Yes

 

 

 

To what extent are these obtained results useful and contribute to improve
he decisions made related to the principal systems of production to whom
he are aimed or directed ?

 

Scale: 1= Very Low I I I I I I I
7=VeryHigh 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Comments:

 

 

 

257

 

"21‘3"" What would be the effects of the application of the results obtained on:

 

 

 

Scale: -3 = Totally unfavorable I I I I I I I
0 = Neutral -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
+3 = Totally favorable

 

Productivity/hectare
Productivity/capital
Productivity/labor

Quality of products

Natural Resources preservation
Environmental Protection
Others (Specify)

 

Comments:

 

 

 

Which mechanisms utilized by INIA do you consider more effective for
diffusion of the Project results (mark in order of immrtance up to 3?

 
 

 

 

 

Scale: 1= Very Low I I I I I I I
7=VeryHigh 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Field Days

Technical Meetings

Diffusion Meetings

Publications

Visit to Experiment Stations

Radio Auditions

Videos

TV

Workshop/Seminars for Technical Update
Pilots Farms or Demonstration Units
Others (Specify)

 

 

 

 

258

 

 

'- Which other mechanisms of diffusion do you suggest?

 

 

- Through extensionists?
. Exchanging ideas with other farmers?

   

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
  
  

6 What do you estimate will be the potential adoption rate of this technology
or information?
Scale: 1=Very Low I I I I I I I
7=VeryHigh 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Comments:
Which are the limitations or restrictions do you consider more important to

adopt the available information or technology generated? (In order of
52222225522225??? im rtance).

Scale: 1=Notlimited I I I I I I I
7=Verylimited 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

Technological
Financial

Economic

Market

Risk

Structural

Regional Infrastructure
Training

 

Comments:

 

 

 

259

-1

 

What would be the magnitude of the adjustment to introduce in the system

 

:-%2%eésézs::;::2::222 of production?

 

 

Scale: 1= None
7= Full I I I I I I I

 

Comments:

 

 

The available information:

  

 

 

. Was well presented ?
0 Should be included in a major packet?
0 Should be separated from others ?

 

 

 

 

E; Considering projection analysis, suggest the suitability:

 

 

 

Finishing the Project with the obtained results and diffusing them
Reformulating it

Continuing it without modifications

Others (Specify)

 

Comments:

 

 

 

” Add comments and suggestions on criteria for Monitoring and
,,;-3;;- Evaluation that you consider convenient to introduce in the next Planning:

 

 

 

 

 

 

260

EVALUATION
MEDIUM TERM STRATEGIC PLAN

EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT ANALYSIS
1997/2001

 

Based on the draft document elaborated for discussion in small groups with INIA
to exchange ideas to be presented in a plenary session, please describe your
ideas about the following issues:

 

5:? Are you in agreement with the critical factors identified in this draft
gig document elaborated on External Environment? What modifications
‘ do ou su est?

  
  

Comments:

 

 

-' ii? Are you in agreement with the common premises identified? What
22 modifications do ou su est?

 

Comments:

 

 

Are you in agreement with the Mission and Vision proposed by INIA ’s
,. Board of Directors? What modifications do cu su est?

   

Comments:

 

 

261

A oendix E

     
  
 

 

EVALUATION

MEDIUM TERM STRATEGIC PLAN
EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT ANALYSIS

1997/2001

Based on the draft document elaborated for discussion in small groups with INIA
to exchange ideas to be presented in a plenary session, please describe your
ideas about the following issues:

 

Which is the opinion of your Institution about INIA, and how can you
compare with the information you have in relation to the action in the
/ t

Comments:

 

 

Are you in agreement with the critical factors and the common premises
identified? hat modifications do ou su oest?

   

Comments:

 

 

Are you in agreement with the Mission and Wsion proposed by INIA’ 3
Board of Directors? What modifications do ou su est

 

Comments:

 

 

262

EVALUATION OF IDEAS OF PROJECTS
MEDIUM TERM STRATEGIC PLAN

1997/2001

 

During the process of identification and selection of relevant themes, the
members of the Regional Advisory Committees and Working Groups have
participated in the review of Strategic Documents elaborated at the Area of
Research level. At this stage it is considered important and opportune to share
with you the following ideas of evolving from Projects, therefore we ask your
opinion on this issues:

 

“I If needed, which commodities or/ and Projects would you add to this
proposal ?

 

 

Express the relevance of the topics included by the scope of ideas of
Projects presented. Indicate the number which, to your understanding, is
the best representation of your opinion on their importance from the
perspective of demand, taking into account their contribution to solve
technological restn'ctions of the system of production at whom they are

 

 

Scale: 1= Very Low . . . . . . .
7=VeryHigh 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

 

263

A oendix G

EVALUATION
MEDIUM TERM STRATEGIC PLAN

199712001

 

INIA, through the Medium Term Strategic Plan (MTSP), culminated recently, has
tried to give priority to the farmers needs in the future research agenda. Based
on your knowledge and participation in this process of strategic planning, please
indicate the number which, to your understanding, best represents your opinion
on the importance of the following aspects:

 

To what extent this process contributes to make a real change from a
model based on technology offering toward a demand—driven model, as
; a be innin for settin the riorit to ics to be researched ?

   

Scale: 1 = Very Low I-----|-----I-----I----|----I---I
7=VeryHigh 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Comments:

 

 

 

To what extent have the user's initiatives on the present problems in
the oroduction s stem been taken into in account this orocess ?

 

Scale: 1 = Very Low |-----I-----I---I-—l——I—-l
7=VeryHigh 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Comments:

 

 

 

264

 

 
  
  

To what extent have the opportunities identified as a consequence of
the prospective analysis of future scenarios been incorporated in this

 

 

....................... process?
Scale: 1=VeryLow I I I I I I I
7=VeryHigh 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Comments:

 

 

 

 

 

oooooooooooo
.........................

What would be the most three important actions you would suggest
to improve participation of the farmers and extensionists in planning,
monitoring and evaluation of the activities of INIA ?

 
  
  

 

 

 

 

..............

Other suggestions to improve the functioning of the Regional Advisory
Committtees and Working Groups:

  

 

 

 

 

 

265

CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT PROCESS

December 1996

 

The purpose of this survey is to learn your opinion in relation to the continuous
improvement process and future collaborative actions to be implemented by
NIA

In order to contribute to it, based in the presentations in this workshop, please
reflect your own opinion, to be discussed later in small groups and in plenary
session at the Experiment Station level, and considering the following
instructions:

- Read carefully and individually the questions in this form
Formulate answers for each one
- Once all members of the group are ready:

- Comment on what has each one done

- Discuss and elaborate a proposal for the group

- Summarize it and prepare an overhead

- Design a representative of the group to present it for discussion in
the plenary session.

The information emerging from this workshop will be very useful to formulate and
implement the continuous improvement process In INIA:

 

What were the most important ideas presented in the workshop ?

 

 

 

 

266

 

 
  

,; " Which are the main internal obstacles that could constrain implementation
‘ of the continuous improvement process in the organization?

 

 

 

 

 

 

.........

What is your disposition to contribute to the implementation of the

2.2:;22.222.222.222: continuous improvement process in the owization?

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

What are the main doubts emerging about the implementation of
$233.2:seassssézzaszs2z2ézi the continuous improvement process in the organization?

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 Other suggestions to improve the implementation of the continuous
22%;:asssgsasgezsgszsaaazé improvement process in the organization.

...........

  

 

 

 

 

 

267

‘IT 6

CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT PROCESS
GUIDE AND FACILITATOR TEAMS WORKSHOP

July 1997

 

The purpose of this survey is to know your opinion in relation to this Seminar /
Workshop on the Continuous Improvement Process, for bringing to the same
level the knowledge of all members of the Facilitator Teams.

Please, fill the required following feedback information:

 

   

What are the principal ideas presented' ln this Seminar that will contribute
to the im o Iementation of the Continuous Imrovement Process in INIA ?

   
   
  

 

 

Which is your opinion on implementation of the Continuous Improvement

 

 

What was the effectiveness of the general organization of the Seminar/
Workshop ?

Scale: 1= Very Low I . I
7=VeryHigh 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Comments:

 

 

268

 

 

  

 

How effective was the Program, the thematic content and the support
=2 .. audiovisual methods utilized in the Seminar/ Workshop ?

 

Scale: 1= Very Low
7= Very High

Comments:

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

5; To what extent do you think the active participation of the members
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, of the Facilitator Teams in the Seminar/ Workshop was useful?

 

Scale: 1= Very Low
7= Very High

Comments:

 

 

 
       

 

 

,, Other suggestions related to the implementation of the Continuous
Improvement Process in INIA ?

 

 

 

 

269

 

 

CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT PROCESS
HUMAN RESOURCES REFORMULATION PROPOSAL

July 1998

 

The purpose of this survey is to learn your opinion in relation to the experience
of conducting proposal preparation for reformulating the areas of Human
Resources, in the context of the continuous improvement process.

Please, fill in the requested Information, marking with an “)6’ in the corresponding
box:

Group Researcher
Support Staff

Sex Male
Female

Age < 30 years
31 —40 years
41 —50 years

> 50 years

In order to evaluate this process, please, reflect your opinion individually, in
relation to your recent participation in the consultancy on the reformulation of the
areas of Human Resources, that are being implemented in INIA.

Your contribution is of great value, being the main reason to pursue
development of this process, strengthening the actions indicated as well as
concentrating efforts on the identified weaknesses, which become our
opportunities for improvement.

270

Scale: Very Low

LOW I I I I I I I
Lightly Low 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Intermediate

Lightly High

High

Very High

 

\ICfiCJ‘l-bofikl-s

 

1 Was it appropriate to include the analysis of the proposal on Human

?%jz-::s;;2:2t:s;; Resources within the Continuous Improvement Process ?

 

 

Scale: 1= Very Low I I I I I I I
7=VeryHigh 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

Comments:

 

 

 

 

i113???" How has the effectiveness of the transmission of the proposal been

 

 

 

 

through the presentations and complementary documents ?
Scale: 1: Very Low I I I I I I I
7: Very High 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Comments:

 

 

 

271

 

 

 

3 To what extent were you informed about this proposal on Human
Resources previous to your participation in thisprocess ?
Scale: 1= Very Low I g l g l I I
7= Very High

 

Comments:

 

 

 

          

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
  

 

 

 

To what extent is this methodology based in teamwork apprOpliate to
accomplish the objectives set ?
Scale: 1= Very Low ' I ' I I ' I
7=VeryHigh 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Comments:
Mention 3 changes that you suggest to improve the ways the themes
.......................... at the Institutional level were treated.

 

 

272

 

 

 

To what extent do you feel free to express your opinion in this
consultancy on Human Resources ?

 

 

 

 

Scale: 1: Very Low I I I I I I '
7: Very High 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Comments:

 

 

 

 

E I To what extent do you consider that these types of actions contribute to
improve communication at the Institutional level (intra- and inter-

 

 

 

 

{ElfiififljfffgijgffIf Experiment Stations / National Direction) ?
Scale: 1= Very Low I I I I I ' '
7: Very High 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Comments:

 

 

 

 

Once the Human Resources Reformulation has been concluded, list 3
topics to be considered priorities to be included in the teamwork process.

 

 

 

 

 

 

273

BIBLIOGRAPHY

274

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, W.M. 1990. Green Development - Environment and Sustainability in the Third
World. London and New York: Routledge.

Allegri, M. and G. Cerizola. 1994. Sistema de Evaluacién de Desempefio de los
Recursos Humanos del INIA. Temas Institucionales No.5. Uruguay: Instituto
Nacional de Investigacion Agropecuaria (INIA).

Allegri, M. and J. Grierson. 1982. La Capacitacién Te’cnica en el CIAAB. In Dialogo H,
Seminario sobre Politicas de Adiestramiento de Personal, Programa Cooperative
de Investigacién Agricola, Convenio IICA — Cono Sur/BID. 1982.

Alston, J. and P. Pardey. 1995. Revitalizing Research and Development. In Agricultural
Policy Reform in the United States. Chapter 9. Edited by DA. Sumner.
Washington DC. The AEI Press.

Antholt, Ch.H. 1994. Getting Ready for the Twenty-First Century. Technical Change
and Institutional Modernization in Agriculture. Technical Paper No. 217.
Washington DC, USA: World Bank.

Argyris, C. 1985. Philosophical and Methodological Issues. In Action Science. Jossey-
Bass Inc.

Argyris, C. and D. Schon. 1989. Participatory Action Research and Action Science
Compared: A Commentary. American Behavioral Scientists. Vol. 32.

Ashby, J. 1993. Identifying Beneficiaries and Participants in Client-Driven On-Farm
Research. Association for Farming Systems Research-Extension. Vol. 4, No. 1.

Ashkeenas, R, D. Ulrich, T. Jick, and S. Kerr. 1995. The Boundaryless Organization:
Breaking the Chains of Organizational Structure. San Francisco, California,
Jossey-Bass.

Axinn, GB. 1978. Institutional Building Concepts. In New Strategies for Rural
Development. Kathmandu and East Lansing, Rural Life Associates.

Axinn, GB. 1990. Accountability and Agricultural Research. Eastern India Farming
Systems Research and Extension News Letter, Vol. IV, No. 2.

Axinn, GR 1991. Sustainable Development Reconsidered. Development, Journal of
the Society for International Development.

275

Axinn OH. and NW. Axinn. 1997. Collaboration in International Rural Development;
A Practitioner's Handbook. New Delhi. Sage Publications.

Barker, J .A. 1992. Paradigms: The Business of Discovering the Future. USA, Harper
Collins Publishers, Inc.

Bawden, R]. 1991. System Thinking and Practice in Agriculture. In Journal of Dairy
Science. Vol. 74: 2362-373.

BCU (Banco Central del Uruguay). 1992. Boletin del Banco Central. Montevideo:
Banco Central del Uruguay.

Benne, K., L.P. Bradford, and R. Lippitt. 1964. T-Group Theory and Laboratory
Method. New York: Wiley.

Bennell, P. 1989. Human Resources Planning and Management: A Review of ISNAR
Activities. In International Workshop on Agricultural Research Management.
1989 ISNAR. Report of a Workshop. The Hague, Netherlands: International
Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR).

Blackburn, R. and B. Rosen. 1993. Total Quality and Human Resources Management:
Lessons Learned fi'om Baldrige Award-Winning Companies. The Journal of
Academy of Management Executive. Vol. 7, No.3.

Boerger, A. 1928. Observaciones sobre Agricultura: Quince afios de Trabajos
Fitote’cnicos en 61 Uruguay. Montevideo, Uruguay, Imprenta Nacional.

Bolman, LG. and TE. Deal. 1991. Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and
Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey—Bass Publishers.

Borges-Andrade, J.E. 1998. ISNAR’s Impacts in Uruguay: Case Study Results. In
ISNAR’s Achievements, Impacts, and Constraints: An assessment of
organizational performance and institutional impact. Edited by Mackay, R,; S.
Debela, T. Smutylo, J. Borges-Andrade, and Ch. Lusthaus. 1998. The Hague,
Netherlands: International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR).

Brown, L.D. 1993. Social Change through Collective Reflection with Asian
Nongovernmental Development Organizations. Human Relations. Vol. 42 (2).

Brown, L.D. and R. Tandon. 1983. The Journal of Applyed Behavioral Science. Vol.
19, No. 3.

Bryant, C. and L. White. 1984. Managing Rural Development with Small Farmer
Participation, West Hartford: Kumarian Press.

276

Bryson, J .M. 1988. Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations. A Guide
to Strengthening and Sustaining Organizational Achievement. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Busch, L., and R.J. Bingen. 1993. Organization and Structure of National Agricultural
Research. A report to the International Service for National Agricultural Research.
Discussion Paper No. 9320. The Hague, Netherlands: International Service for
National Agricultural Research (ISNAR).

Byerlee, D. and GE. Alex. 1998. Strengthening National Agricultural Research
Systems. Policy Issues and Good Practice. Washington, DC, The World Bank.

Cano, J. 1981. Formation of Human Resources for Agricultural Research in Latin
America, and Participation in Research Network: Training Researchers at CIAT.
PhD Dissertation, East Lansing, Michigan State University.

Capra, F. 1996. The Web of Life. A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems.
New York, Anchor Books, Doubleday.

CCN (Comite’ Nacional de Calidad). 1999. Premio Nacional de Calidad: Modelo de
Mejora Continua. Uruguay.

CGIAR. 1998. Shaping the CGIAR's Future. Summary of Proceedings and Decisions.
Washington, DC. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
(CGIAR).

Chambers, R. 1983. Rural Development, Putting the Last First. London, England
Longman Scientific and Technical.

Chambers, R. 1993. Challenging the Professions. Frontiers for Rural Development.
London, England, Intermediate Technology Publications.

Covey, SR. 1989. The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People: Restoring the
Character Ethic. New York: Simon & Schuster Inc.

Crosson, P. 1996. Sustainable agriculture: A Gobal Perspective. In The Best of Choices.
Ames, Iowa, American Agricultural Economics Association.

Dean, J .W. and DE. Bowen. 1994. Management Theory and Total Quality: Improving
Research and Practice Through Theory Development. Academy of Management
Review 1994, Vol. 19, No. 3.

Dean, J .W. and J .R. Evans. 1994. Total Quality: Management, Organization and
Strategy. MN: West, St.PauI.

277

 

Delpiazzo, CE. 1993. Marco Juridico del Instituto Nacional de Investigacién
Agropecuaria. Temas Institucionales No.3. Uruguay: Instituto Nacional de
Investigacién Agropecuaria (INIA).

Deming, WE. 1986. Out of the Crisis. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. Center for Advanced Engineering.

Dias Avila, A.F., G. Hareau, B. Lanfranco, and C. Negro. 1995. Formulacién del Plan
Indicativo de Mediano Plazo (PIMP) del INIA: Propuesta Metodolégica. Versién
Preliminar. Montevideo, Uruguay: Instituto Nacional de Investigacién
Agropecuaria (INIA).

Diaz, R. 1985. Un Analisis Institucional de los Recursos Dispuestos para Generacibn de
Tecnologia en 61 Sector Agropecuario del Uruguay. Revista de la Asociacién de
Ingenieros Agrénomos. 1985. Vol. 3, No. 2.

Diaz, R. and H. Duran. 1995. Plan Indicativo de Mediano Plazo: Caracterizacién del
Ambiente Interno. Informe. Uruguay: Instituto Nacional de Investigacién
Agropecuaria (INIA).

Dickinson, IA. 1988. Experiential Social Learning and Management for Social
Transformation: A Case Study of a Community Development Project in Lima,
Peru. PhD Dissertation, East Lansing, Michigan State University.

DIEA (Direccién de Investigacién de Estudios Econome'tricos Agropecuarios). 1994.
Censo General Agropecuaria de 1990. Direccion de Censos y Encuestas.
Montevideo: Ministerio de Ganaderia Agricultura y Pesca. Uruguay.

Douglas, GK. 1985. When is Agriculture Sustainable? In Sustainable Agriculture and
Integrated Farming Systems Ed. Edens, T., C. Fridgen, and S. Battenfield. East
Lansing: Michigan State University Press.

Drucker, P. 1980. Managing in Turbulent Times. New York, Harper and Row.

Echeverria, R.G., G. Ferreira, and M. Dabezies. 1989. Returns to Investments in the
Generation and Transfer of Rice Technology in Uruguay. ISNAR Working Paper
No. 30. The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research
(ISNAR).

Echeverria, R.G., E.J. Trigo, and D. Byerlee. 1998. Financing Agricultural Research in
Latin America. In ISNAR 1998 Financing Agricultural Research: A Sourcebook.
Edited by Tabor, S.R., W. Janssen, and H. Bruneau. The Hague: International
Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR).

278

Edens, T. 1985. Toward a Sustainable Agriculture. In Sustainable Agriculture and
Integrated Farming Systems Ed. Edens, T., C. Fridgen, and S. Battenfield. East
Lansing: Michigan State University Press.

Elliot, H. 1998. Financing Agricultural Research: Do Organization and Structure Make
a Difference? In ISNAR 1998 Financing Agricultural Research: A Sourcebook.
Edited by Tabor, S.R., W. Janssen, and H. Bruneau. ISNAR .1998. The Hague:
International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR).

EPSD (Economic Policies for Sustainable Development). 1990. Asian Development
Bank. Philippines: Times Offset Pte. Ltd.

Equipos Consultores Asociados. 1997. Tecnologia en Areas de Ganaderia Extensiva:
Encuesta sobre Actitudes y Comportamientos. Serie Técnica, No. 14. Uruguay:
Instituto Nacional de Investigacién Agropecuaria (INIA).

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 1991. The State of Food and Agriculture.
Rome, Italy: FAO.

F A0. 1996. People's Participation. Sustainable Rural Development: Progress and
Challenges. FAO/SD Dimensions/Special 2.

Farrington, J. and A. Martin. 1988. Farmer Participation in Agricultural Research: A

Review of Concepts and Practices. Agricultural Administration. Occasional
Paper No. 9, ODI London.

Farrington, J., A. Bebbington, K. Wellard, and D. Lewis. 1994. Reluctant Partners?
Non-governmental organizations, the state and sustainable agricultural
development. London and New York, Routledge.

Farrington, J. and J. Nelson. 1997. Using Logframes to Monitor and Review Farmer
Participatory Research. Agricultural Research and Extension Network. Network
Paper No.73. ODI London.

Fear, FA. and J .R. Lichty. 1990. Action Research in Community Development. In 22nd
Annual Conference of the Community Development Society:
Little Rock, Arkansas.

Fear, FA. 1996a. An Organization-Building Approach to Technology. Department of
Resource Development, Michigan State University.

Fear, F.A. 1996b. Transforming University Outreach: Vision, Change, and Scholarship.
In Extending the University: Technical Assistance and Community
Empowerment. Department of Resource Development, Michigan State
University.

279

Fear, FA. 1998. Life Afier Senge: Observations about the Learning Organization the
Late 19905. LeadNet, Michigan State University Extension.

Ferreira, G. 1998. An Evolutionary Approach to Farming Decision Making on Extensive
Rangelands. PhD. Thesis. University of Edinburgh. United Kingdom.

F reire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the Opressed. New York: The Seabury Press.

Goldsmith, AA 1991. Institutional Development for Agricultural Research: Concepts,
Models and Measures. Staff Notes. The Hague, Netherlands: International Service
for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR).

Gray, B. 1989. Collaborating: Finding Common Ground of Multiparty Problems. San
Francisco, California, Jossey-Bass.

Greenwood, D., W.F. Whyte, and I. Harkavy. 1993. Participatory Action Research as a
Process and as a Goal. Human Relations. Vol. 46, No. 2.

Griffin, R.W. and G. Moorhead. 1986. Organizational Behaviour. Massachusetts, USA:
Houghton Mifflin Company.

Guba, E.G. and Y8. Lincoln. 1981. Effective Evaluation: Improving the Usefulness of
Evaluation Results through Responsive and Naturalistic Approaches. San
Francisco, California, Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.

Harwood, RR. 1994. Broadened Agricultural Development: Pathways Toward the
Greening of Revolution. Michigan, USA. Michigan State University.

Harwood, RR. 1995. Natural Farming Systems: Meeting the Goals of Sustainable
Agriculture. Michigan, USA. Michigan State University.

Hobbs, H., C. Valverde, E. Indarte, and B. Lanfranco. 1998. Benchmark Study. The
Agricultural Technology Development Fund for Contract Research: An INIA
(Uruguay) Initiative. Briefing Paper No. 40. The Hague, Netherlands:
International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR).

Hoover, K.R. and T. Donovan. 1995. The Elements of Social Scientific Thinking. New
York, St. Martin's Press, Inc.

Horton, D., P. Ballantyne, W. Peterson, B. Uribe, D. Gapasin, and K. Sheridan. 1993.

Monitoring and Evaluating Agricultural Research. A Sourcebook. The Hague,
Netherlands: International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR ).

280

Horton, D. and G. Hareau. 1999. Cambios en la Planificacién, Seguimiento y
Evaluacion en la Administracién de la Investigacién Agropecuaria: Un Estudio
de Caso del INIA Uruguay. In press. The Hague, Netherlands: International
Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR).

Huxham, C. 1996. Creating Collaborative Advantage. San Francisco, California, Sage
Publications. Ltd.

INE (Instituto Nacional de Estadistica). 1996. Anuario Estadistico. Uruguay: Instituto
Nacional de Estadistica.

INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigacién Agropecuaria). 1993. Plan Operativo de
Mediano Plazo. Temas Institucionales No.2. Uruguay: Instituto Nacional de
Investigacion Agropecuaria (INIA).

INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigacién Agropecuaria). 1997a. Unidad de
Administracion y Finanzas. Informe Proyecto INIA/BID. Generacién y
Transferencia de Tecnologia Agropecuaria. Uruguay: Instituto Nacional de
Investigacién Agropecuaria (INIA).

INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigacién Agropecuaria). 1997b. Unidad de Proyectos.
Forrnato y Guia para la Formulacién de Proyectos de Investigacién. Uruguay:
Instituto Nacional de Investigacién Agropecuaria (INIA).

INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigacién Agropecuaria). 1998a. Unidad de
Administracién y F inanzas. Informe Anual. Uruguay: Instituto Nacional de
Investigacién Agropecuaria (INIA).

INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigacién Agropecuaria). 1998b. Unidad de Cooperacion
Intemacional. Informe Cooperacion Intemacional. Uruguay: Instituto Nacional de
Investigacién Agropecuaria (INIA).

INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigacién Agropecuaria). 1998c. Area Cultivos.
Mejoramiento Genético en Cultivos. Informe. Uruguay: Instituto Nacional de
Investigacion Agropecuaria (INIA).

INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigacion Agropecuaria). 1998d. Unidad de Proyectos,
Seguimiento y Evaluacién. Informe Interno. Uruguay: Instituto Nacional de
Investigacion Agropecuaria (INIA).

INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigacién Agropecuaria). 1999a. Cultivos: Plan

Indicativo de Mediano Plazo, Estudios Estratégicos. Temas Institucionales.
Uruguay: Instituto Nacional de Investigacion Agropecuaria (INIA).

281

 

INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigacion Agropecuaria). 1999b. Produccién Animal:
Plan Indicativo de Mediano Plazo, Estudios Estratégicos. Temas Institucionales.
Uruguay: Instituto Nacional de Investigacion Agropecuaria (INIA).

INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigacién Agropecuaria). 1999c. Horti-Fruticultura: Plan
Indicativo de Mediano Plazo, Estudios Estratégicos. Temas Institucionales.
Uruguay: Instituto Nacional de Investigacién Agropecuaria (INIA).

INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigacién Agropecuaria). 1999d. Forestales: Plan
Indicativo de Mediano Plazo, Estudios Estratégicos. Temas Institucionales.
Uruguay: Instituto Nacional de Investigacion Agropecuaria (INIA).

ISNAR (International Service for National Agricultural Research). 1990a. Sistema de
Planificacion para el Instituto Nacional de Investigacion Agropecuaria: Propuesta
Preparada en forma conjunta entre CIAAB, MGAP e ISNAR. The Hague:
International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR).

ISNAR (International Service for National Agricultural Research). 1990b. Politicas y
Estrategias de Accién del Instituto Nacional de Investigacién Agropecuaria:
Propuesta Preparada en forma conjunta entre CIAAB, MGAP e ISNAR. The
Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR).

ISNAR (International Service for National Agricultural Research). 1990c. Estructura y
Organizacion del Instituto Nacional de Investigacion Agropecuaria: Propuesta
Preparada en forma conjunta entre CIAAB, MGAP e ISNAR. The Hague:
International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR).

ISNAR (International Service for National Agricultural Research). 1990d. Definicién de
Prioridades para la Investigacion Agropecuaria: Propuesta Preparada en forma
conjunta entre CIAAB, MGAP e ISNAR. The Hague: International Service for
National Agricultural Research (ISNAR).

ISNAR (International Service for National Agricultural Research). 1990c. Desarrollo
de Recursos Humanos para 6] Instituto Nacional de Investigacién Agropecuaria:
Propuesta Preparada en forma conjunta entre CIAAB, MGAP e ISNAR. The
Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR).

ISNAR (International Service for National Agricultural Research). 1997. When NARS
Retool. Strengthening Agricultural Research Institutions to Meet 21st Century
Challenges. International Service for National Agricultural Research. The Hague:
International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR).

282

 

ISNAR (International Service for National Agricultural Research). 1998. ISNAR’s
Achievements, Impacts, and Constraints: An assessment of organizational
performance and institutional impact. International Service for National
Agricultural Research. Mackay, R. et al. International Service for National
Agricultural Research. The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural
Research (ISNAR).

Jain, H.K. 1989. Organization and Structure in National Agricultural Research Systems.
Working Paper No. 21. The Hague, Netherlands: International Service for National
Agricultural Research (ISNAR).

Korten, DC. and R. Klaus. 1984. People Centered Development. West Hartford,
Kumarian Press.

Kothari, R. 1988. Rethinking Development: In Search of Humane Alternatives. Ajanta
Publications.

Kouzes, J.M. and B.Z. Posner. 1988. The Leadership Challenge: How to Get

Extraordinary Things Done in Organizations. San Francisco, California,
Jossey-Bass,

Kuhn, T. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago.
Lampkin, N. 1992. Organic F arming. UK. Farming Press Books.

Lewin, K. 1946. Action Research and Minority Problems. Journal of Social
Issues. Vol.2.

Liu, M. 1992. Presentation de la recherche-action, definition, déroulement et resultats.
Revue International de Syste’mique 6.

Lockeretz, W. and MD. Anderson. 1993. Agricultural Research Alternative. Nebraska,
USA: University of Nebraska Press.

Marshall, B. 1995. Transforming the Way We Work: The Power of the Collaborative
Workplace. New York: American Management Association.

Martin, A. and J. Sherington. 1996. Participatory Research Method: Implementation,
Effectiveness and Institutional Linkage. In Socio-Economic Methodology
Workshop. Natural Resources Institute, UK.

Mc Lean, D. 1988. Monitoring and Evaluation in the Management of Agricultural

Research. Working Paper No. 14. The Hague, Netherlands: International Service
for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR).

283

 

MGAP (Ministerio de Ganaderia, Agricultura y Pesca). 1967. Centro de Investigaciones
Agricola “Alberto Boerger”, La Estanzuela: Research in Action for the Economic
Development of Uruguay. Uruguay.

MGAP (Ministerio de Ganaderia, Agricultura y Pesca). 1997. Proyecto MGAP/BID UR-
0116 Programa de Servicios Agropecuarios: Subprograma de Generacién y
Transferencia de Tecnologia. Uruguay.

Mohrman, S., S. Cohen, and A. Mohrman, Jr. 1995. Designing Team-Based
Organization: New Forms for Knowledge Work . San Francisco, California,
Jossey-Bass.

Morgan, G. 1990. Images of Organization. California. Newbury Park, Sage
Publications, Inc.

Moscardi, E. 1992. Farming Systems Research in Latin American Countries: Past
Experience and Challenges for the Future. In Toward a New Paradigm for
Farming Systems Research/Extension. Michigan, USA. Report of 12 th. Annual
Farming Systems Symposium. Michigan State University.

MRREE (Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores). 1997. Uruguay: Puerta del
MERCOSUR. Informe. Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores del Uruguay.
Uruguay.

NRC (National Research Council). 1989. Alternative Agriculture. Committee on the
Role of Alternative Farming Methods in Modern Production Agriculture.
Washington, DC. National Academy Press.

NRC (National Research Council). 1991. Toward Sustainability. A Plan for
Collaborative Research on Agriculture and Natural Resource Management.
Washington, DC, National Academy Press.

OPP (Oficina de Planeamiento y Presupuesto). 1988. Uruguay Actual. Informacién
Economica y Social. Presidencia de la Republica. Uruguay.

OPYPA (Oficina de Planeamiento y Programacién Agropecuaria). 1998. Anuario 1998.
Montevideo: Ministerio de Ganaderia Agricultura y Pesca. Uruguay.

Paolino, C. and J. Silva. 1995. Plan Indicativo de Mediano Plazo: Caracterizacién del
Ambiente Extemo. Informe. Uruguay: Instituto Nacional de Investigacién
Agropecuaria (INIA).

Patton, M. Q. 1982. Practical Evaluation. USA, Sage Publications, Inc..

Patton, MO. 1986. Utilization-focused evaluation. USA, Sage Publications, Inc.

284

 

Peters, T. and R. Waterman. 1982. In Search of Excellence. Lessons from America's
Best-Run Companies. Harper and Row Publishers, Inc.

Porter, ME. 1998. On Competition. Harvard Business Review Book.

Rabuffetti, A. 1989. Institutional Reorganization of Agricultural Research in Uruguay.
In International Workshop on Agricultural Research Management. The Hague,
Netherlands: International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR).

Rapaport, R. 1970. Three Dilemmas in Action Research. Human relations, Vol. 23.

Robison, LI and AA. Schmid. 1996. Can Agriculture Prosper without Increased Social
Capital? In The Best of Choices. Ames, Iowa. American Agricultural Economics
Association.

Ruttan, V.W. 1996. Sustainable Growth in Agricultural Production: Into the Twenty-
first Century. In The Best of Choices. American Agricultural Economics
Association, Ames, Iowa.

Ryan, V. 1987. Use of Action Research. In Needs Assessment: Theory and Methods.

Ed. Johnson, DE, L.R. Meiller, L.C. Miller and G.F. Summers Ames, Iowa State
University Press,

Scheler, P. 1996. Public Relations: Contribution to a New Paradigm in Agricultural
Research. A baseline study on the public relations of the Instituto Nacional de
Investigacién Agropecuaria (INIA), in Uruguay. Newsletter, No. 30. The Hague:
International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR).

Schuler, R. and V. Huber. 1993. Personnel and Human Resource Management.
Minneapolis, St. Paul, West Publishing Co.

Selener, D. 1997. Participatory Action Research and Social Change. Cornell University,
Ithaca, New York, Cornell University Press.

Senge, P. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning
Organization. New York, Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group Inc.

Senge, P. 1994. The Fifth Discipline: Fieldbook of Strategy Tools for Building a
Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday Currency.

Singleton, R, B. Straits, M. Straits, and R. Mc Allister. 1992. Approaches to Social
Research. New York, Oxford University Press.

Spedding, CR. 1995. Sustainability in Animal Production Systems. Animal Science
1995, Vol. 61. British Society of Animal Science.

285

Spencer, B. 1994. Models of Organization and Total Quality Management: A
Comparison and Critical Evaluation. Academy of Management Review 1994,
Vol. 19, No. 3.

Stagno, H. and M. Allegri. 1985. Organizacién y Administracién de la Generacion y
Transferencia de Tecnologia Agropcuaria. IICA/MGAP. Montevideo, Uruguay.

Stufflebeam, D.L. 1971 Educational Evaluation and Decision-Making. Itacsca,
III. :Peacock Publishing.

TAC/CGIAR (Technical Advsisory Committee of the Consultative Group International
Agricultural Research). 1989. Sustainable Agricultural Production: Implications
for International Agricultural Research. FAO. Research and Technology. Paper
No. 4, Rome, Italy: TAC Secretariat, FAO.

Tollini, H. 1998. Capital Investment Policies and Agricultural Research. In ISNAR
1998 Financing Agricultural Research: A Sourcebook. Edited by Tabor, S.R., W.
Janssen, and H. Bruneau. The Hague: International Service for National
Agricultural Research (ISNAR).

UNCED. 1992. Agenda 21. United Nation Commission on Sustainable Development.
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

UNDP (United Nations Development Program). 1997. Human Development Report,
United Nations Development Programme. New York:Oxford University Press.

Uphoff, N. 1992. Learning from Gal Oya: Possibilities for Paraticipatory Development
and Post-Newtonian Social Science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

USDA. 1999. Stakeholder Input Requirements for Recipients of Agricultural Research,
Education, and Extension Formula Funds. Federal Register, 1999, Vol. 64:71.

Vail, P. 1996. Learning as a Way of Being: Strategies for Survival in a World of
Permanent White Water. San Francisco, J ossey-Bass.

Vallerand, F. 1994. The contribution of Action-research to the organization of agrarian
systems. In Rural and Farming Systems Analysis. Ed. Dent. J. and
M. McGregor. CAB.

Valverde, C. 1990. Decentralized Public Institution: The Latin American Model. In
Organization and Structure of National Agricultural Research Systems. Report of
a Workshop. The Hague, Netherlands: International Service for National
Agricultural Research (ISNAR).

Vandenberg, L. and F. Fear. 1983. Participatory Research: A Comparative Analysis of
Two Approaches. Journal of Voluntary Action Research. Vol. 12:11.

286

 

vazquez Platero, R. and A. Pizzerno. 1996. Evaluacién de la Ejecucién del Proyecto
“Generacion y Transferencia de Tecnologia Agropecuaria”. Montevideo,
Uruguay: Instituto Nacional de Investigacion Agropecuaria (INIA).

Wagner, J. and J. Hollenbeck. 1995. Management of Organizational Behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall Inc. Simon and Schuster Co.

WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). 1987. Our Common
Future. The Bruntland Report. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Whyte, W.F. 19913. Participatory Action Research. Newbury Park. Sage
Publications, Inc.

Whyte, W.F. 1991b. Social Theory for Social Action: How Individuals and
Organization Learn to Change. Newbury Park. Sage Publications. Inc.

World Bank. 1992. Development and the Environment. World Development Report.
Oxford: University Press.

World Bank. 1998. Reforming Agricultural Research Organizations. Creating
Autonomous Bodies and Managing Change. Good Practice Note No. 01/99. The
World Bank, Washington, DC.

Yin, R. K. 1991. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Newbury Park, California,
Sage Publications, Inc.

Ziman, J. 1994. Prometheus Bound. Science in a dynamic steady state. Cambridge,
University Press.

287