In July 2008 the Institutional Knowledge Sharing (IKS) Project commissioned RE4D.net to conduct an independent evaluation of the first phase (2004-2006) of the Knowledge Sharing project. This study assesses the results of the four pilot activities, illustrates the systemic impact of the project, and presents lessons distilled from the combined experience of KS professionals in six CGIAR centers.
The study used semi-structured, open-ended telephone interviews to gather feedback from 14 CGIAR staff and consultants who were involved in the first phase of the KS project or undertook similar initiatives at the same time. This anecdotal feedback was then categorized, allowing for a meaningful analysis of the benefits of the KS project and the challenges it faces.
The study issues three major recommendations:
1. Common front for change initiatives
The various initiatives promoting innovation, learning, KS, and change in the CGIAR should develop a common advocacy strategy enabling them to insert key messages into organizational development processes. The aim of this strategy should be to generate commitment at the top end of the hierarchy to those interlinked issues in order to increase impact.
2. Show benefits better, specifically for senior scientists
The challenge for the KS community is to lower the threshold of KS for first-time users and to change the perception of KS as time-consuming. Furthermore, senior scientists are a powerful constituency with the potential to obstruct new KS initiatives. They often have little to gain from KS and other participatory techniques because they already have a voice and a network. To increase senior scientist buy-in and therefore impact the impact of KS, the KS community needs to make more obvious to senior scientists the benefits of the initial investment.
3. Work on definition
The KS community should invest time to define the fundamental concepts of knowledge sharing so as to create a specific body of knowledge on KS and establish it as a separate discipline.
10 Key Lessons summarize the project learnings that have been reinforced and worked upon since then in project phase 2.
A reflective and constructive analysis – I enjoyed reading it bc it also speaks to us individuals and our work in the centers.
Great to get this! I just read of the 3 recommendations and 10 lessons and found them very insightful and well formulated. I’m currently working with colleagues at CIP on capacity development strategies for disseminating a new R&D approach (the “participatory market chain approach”), and your lessons are very relevant for this. So, we’ll be among the first to cite your report! Thanks and congratulations on getting it out!
It’s a real pleasure to finally see the results of such a thoughtful evaluation. Reading it brought back memories of many stimulating experiences as well as some difficult ones. I just wish it were clearer what is the way forward for KS in the CGIAR.
Great evaluations study! I think the way forward for KS in the CGIAR and in individual centers is to make KS an essential component of our respective communications strategies and business plans.
Thank you Andrea, Doug, and Nathan for you comments. I would love to hear your thoughts about the need to define KS better. Do you think that would help in sclaing it up? Nathan, I think that the way forward with KS is related to the CG change process, as well as the issue of combining forces among change and learning initiatives. In the recent meeting of the Transition Management Team with CIAT staff, Steve Hall, the Alliance Chair, said that it was perhaps too early to define the framework of future joint services within the System. The question might be if it is urgent to wait or if some options should be discussed now so they are ready to be considered when the time comes…