25maynotes5


 * ILRI Strategy discussion meeting on 25th May 2012 – Group 5**


 * notes by** Ethel Makila

Participants included i. Pamela Pali ii. Mohamed Said iii. Alan Liavoga iv. Linda Opati v. Patrick Mbithi vi. Julie Ojango vii. Lawrence Mbora viii. Winnie Anyango ix. Ethel Makila x. Shirley Tarawali xi. George Levvy


 * 1) The session was facilitated by **George Levvy** from the Compass Partnership, a consultancy that specializes in assisting not-for-profit outfits develop their strategy, governance & leadership plans. He begun by stating that while often employees outside of the management circle in any organization feel that strategy development has nothing to do with them, a strategy done well, with a participatory approach, will shape everything that happens in an organization right from funding, spending, core activitis, etc. if it is also followed through seriously.
 * 2) George made the following points:
 * Forming strategy = understanding your context the world you are operating in. In ILRI’s case the context is the livestock world and the ILRI organizational world.
 * Strategy needs to answer TWO KEY QUESTIONS:
 * 1) **WHAT** are we trying to achieve within a given timeframe and
 * 2) **HOW** do we do it.
 * In ILRI’s case, we are looking at a 10 year plan – what do we want ILRI to achieve in by the MID 2020s. This question will determine the options available.
 * 1) Shirley: give a background on the strategy planning group discussions in relation to the rest of the strategy planning process.
 * 2) Before the group discussions begun, Liz sought clarification on two issues


 * Q //Why the timeframe of 10 years had been chosen to base the strategy development on yet organizational context (CGIAR etc) is fast changing.//**
 * A** //Timescales in terms of farmer communities and people’s lives (our research mandate) are relatively constant. What ILRI does for the world, the intended impact – fundamentals (lives of people, working with livestock) are in terms of decades. However, in as much as we do a 10 year plan, it has to be re-visited to check its relevance and validity meaning, there are timeframes within the larger time scale//**.**
 * Q //There is the understanding that this is a science/research institute, so it follows that the scientists need to take the lead and the support staff follow. What role do the non-scientist members of the organization have to play in developing the strategy?//**
 * //A//** //The ability to persuade non-scientists who form the bulk of the society which ILRI’s activities influence is key. In every organization, every individual needs to see their part in achieving the ultimate goal - everyone needs to be able to buy-in to the strategy. Non-scientists can contribute to the planning for the whole organization to run efficiently//


 * THE GROUP DISCUSSION**


 * QUESTION1 - WHAT WOULD SUCCESS FOR ILRI LOOK LIKE?**
 * Responses:**
 * 1) Recognition of ILRI as a leading institution in the livestock arena
 * 2) Have visible impact on the immediate environment we are located in
 * 3) Have a global approach to research - tackle global issues as opposed to regional ones
 * 4) Experience financial growth
 * 5) Have cutting edge research by our scientists that gets global recognition
 * 6) **Have all staff motivated, take pride in and ownership of the institution. Staff being able to explain what it is that ILRI does***
 * 7) Participate in more conferences and events related to our work – more engagement
 * 8) Have strategies that are aligned with regional partners
 * 9) **Have more partnerships (both south-south and north-south) that result in products formulation, collaborative work and resource mobilization with different partners, influence on policy formulation***
 * 10) Universal capacity building opportunities for staff
 * 11) Have tangible impact in the area of food security.
 * //*= The priority markers of success//**


 * QUESTION2 – WHAT WOULD WE LIKE TO KEEP AND WHAT WOULD WE LIKE TO CHANGE?**
 * || **RESEARCH** || **WORKPLACE** ||
 * **Keep** || * Quality of research
 * Infrastructure
 * Collaborative research
 * CRP focus approach
 * Global offices || * Multicultural environment
 * Physical environment and facilities
 * Employee benefits ||
 * **Change** || * Non cohesive inter-departmental relations and fragmented research efforts
 * Over-emphasis on markets and products rather than bioscience
 * Diffuse boundaries between thematic/disciplinary groups
 * The focus on too few countries (as a result of the CRP approach)
 * Interaction with partners – ILRI is an “expensive partner” || * Communication and internal PR style
 * Organizational structure
 * Absence of succession planning – opportunities for promotion
 * Remuneration
 * Staff motivation
 * Staff-management relations ||