Notes webex call - March 12 - 2012 CGIAR stakeholder perceptions survey

[Alfaro, Daniela (CGIAR Consortium)]

Dear colleagues,

Please see below the notes of our  last webex  meeting . I confirm you that GS team (Erick and Michele) will come to the Consortium Office on April 10^th to make a presentation of the survey  and discuss the results  with the CEO and Directors of the CO.

If you would like to provide views of next steps, please feel free to do so.  As I mentioned in the meeting, most of the work is still to be done.

Best regards,

Daniela

 

Notes – WEBEX Conference call

2012 CGIAR Stakeholder Perceptions Survey

 

March 21^st, 2013 (15:00 to 16:15, Montpellier time)

 

Participants:

Mark Holderness, Teunis Van Rheenen, Eric Whan, Michele Cunningham, Daniela Alfaro, Martin Olivera. Sonja Vermeulen and Kenton Dashiell sent comments in writing form.

Apologies: Graham Thiele

 

 

Agenda:

 

1.      Presentation by Globescan (GS) of the 2012 Stakeholders Survey “Draft Report of Results”, submitted to the Consortium Office on March 7^th 2013. The presentation is attached for your reference

2.      Discussion 

3.      Next steps

 

 

GS presented salient features of the survey and most important quantitative results as they appear in the Draft report of Results. Additional insights were given by GS regarding the interpretation of results, most notably:

-          What CGIAR does is positively perceived by stakeholders but “how” it is done should be improved, especially in some areas related to communication.

-          The realm of influence of CGIAR has potential to be extended beyond the scientific community.

-          SLOs have few poor ratings in spite of the fact that not all of them have predominantly positive perceptions.

-          Quite widespread satisfaction with partnerships with CGIAR overall but it is not the same situation when it comes to quality of partnerships compared to other organizations stakeholders partner with.

-          GS identified high expectations of stakeholders regarding funds. To some extent CGIAR is seen as the link to funds (“the bank”).

-          The comparison with 2006 results shows that there is a slight decline in transparency and involvement of partners in decision making.

-          According to the strategic analysis made by GS, CGIAR is in the inverse situation to the ideal one in terms of relevance and importance of the partnerships dimensions assessed in the survey. Ideally, this should be changed in the future as it represents a misalignment between importance and current strengths of the CGIAR. However, GS suggests considering this as an opportunity provided the overall positive perception that stakeholders have about partnerships with the CGIAR.

 

The Committee, including non-present members, considered satisfactory the Draft Report of Results regardless of some minor adjustments that GS will make before sending the final version of the report to the CO.  Further comments could be sent by the Committee Members which will be transmitted to GS by the CO.

In order to face the “cultural shift”, GS suggested improving communication and collaboration areas. More transparency, online platforms for less formal debates, sharing results and a participatory approach were part of the suggestions.

 Daniela  shared the feedback provided by  the CO in her presentation held the day before. She highlighted that the challenge resides in what the CGIAR Consortium will be able to do with all these information and results. Most of the work is  still to be done. She also informed the appointment, by the CGIAR CEO, of a Working Group for designing a communication plan for the survey. The Communication plan is a key element to adequately follow-up the Survey outcomes and for improving in the areas where it showed CGIAR opportunities. This Working Group, comprised by the CEO, Director of Communications, Director of staff  and herself will work closely with the Survey Committee.

A survey presentation is planned to be held by GS in person at the CO by beginning of April.  If possible, Committee members could be present or through a virtual meeting. Further coordination through the CO will be done to arrange this meeting.

It was clarified that the current Draft Report is of exclusive use of the CO and the Survey Committee until the Communication Plan is designed. 

 

 

 

   

 

 

[Alfaro, Daniela (CGIAR Consortium)]

Thanks Graham for your comments.  As I mentioned, we are going to organize a virtual meeting on April 10th  taking the opportunity that GS team will be here in the Consortium Office. So your feedback as CRP Director will be very valuable for the discussion of the communication plan that we will develop with the survey results.

Please keep in touch.

All the best in Cali where important topics are being discussed.

Daniela

 

From: Thiele, Graham (CRP-RTB)
Sent: 26 March 2013 03:36
To: Alfaro, Daniela (CGIAR Consortium)
Subject: RE: Notes webex call - March 12 - 2012 CGIAR stakeholder perceptions survey

 

Dear Daniela

I am sorry I could not comment. I am simply overwhelmed. I have been in Cali in different workshops for past week.

I have looked at the report and I am generally happy with conclusions and find it very valuable. RTB did not get such a great score in partners perceptions but I think that reflects where we are at the moment, and see this as baseline against which we will improve. Actually it is useful for me to have this to leverage change.

Best regards

Graham

 

 

Graham Thiele  Director
CGIAR Research Program Roots Tubers and Bananas