Page - (000086) - in Evaluating Climate Change Action for Sustainable Development

importanceof building capacity for institutional learning (Hall et al. 2003;Horton andMackay 2003; Eade 1997; Springer-Heinze et al. 2003). Eade (1997) empha- sizes a capacity-building approach, training of staff in a variety of relevant skills, andthedynamicandlong-termnatureof theprocesswhenlookingat typesofsocial organizationofNGOsengaged in development theory andpractice. Johnson et al. (2003)showthatparticipationofnon-researchstakeholdersearlyon in theresearch process is important,as itcaninforminstitutional learninginresearchorganizations to changepriorities andpractices. It can also enhance the relevanceof agricultural technologies and the capacity of these stakeholders to design their own action research processes (Johnson et al. 2003). Horton andMackay (2003) outline the linksbetweenM&E,learningandinstitutionalchangeandhighlight the importance of institutional learningasameans todevelopthecapacitiesof theorganizationand of individual researchers, as well as empowering non-research partners as key stakeholders in the process. CCAFSworkedwith expert facilitators and trainers fromPIPA to implement a 1-week training course on using TOC for project and programplanning (Alvarez et al. 2014). Participants were chosen strategically so that capacity would be available in the CGIAR Centers at the point in time when CGIAR proposals would need to be developed following the TOCprinciples. In addition to project representatives, CCAFS science officers representing all themes and regions par- ticipated, in order to build in-house capacity of TOCchampions. The training, in combinationwithTOC facilitation guides (version 1: Jost et al. 2014d; version 2: Schuetz et al. 2014d) and learning notes (CCAFS 2015a), helped highlight the opportunities (and constraints) of rolling out RBM to awhole R4D program.An online community of practice (and wikispace) was established and allowed for continueddocumentation and exchangeof experiences. 4.9 CCAFS’Results-BasedManagementTrial: Insights fromResearchers andPartners CCAFS’ approach toRBM is centered on adaptivemanagement, regular commu- nications between program and projects, and facilitated learning within projects. Besides periodic virtual meetings, trial participants were surveyed for a more in-depth and standardized reflection, and for capturing lessons and achievements fromtheir experience (Schuetzetal. 2014b,c).These lessonsalso formed thebasis for the progress report to CO (Thornton et al. 2014c). Tenmonths into theRBM trial, theprogress report summarizedprojectparticipant experiences, aswell as the programmatic perspective. From the programmatic level, reflections and lessons by the CCAFS Program ManagementCommitteehavebeendocumented in theCOprogress report, aswell as in theseriesof learningnotes(CCAFS2015a). Itwasagreat learningexperience tohaveanRBMtrialwith thesixprojects and tobeallowed to test and tryoutwhat 4 Pathway to Impact: Supporting andEvaluatingEnablingEnvironments for. . . 67