Page - (000087) - in Evaluating Climate Change Action for Sustainable Development

is required tomake the shift fromaLFAtoanapproach that ismuchmorepeople- focused, learning-focused and outcome-focused. The approach to developing the IPs was simplified over time, mostly in relation to a reduction in the type and numberof indicatorsand levelofcomplexityso that thewidergroupofpeoplewho wereexpectedtoworkwiththemwouldcontinuetobuyintotheapproach(Schuetz et al. 2014d). The survey results show that there aremanypeoplewithinCGIARCenters and CCAFSpartnerswho arewilling to take on the challenge to developnewways of collaborating andworking beyond delivering outputs towards outcomes (Schuetz etal.2014b).Fromthesurvey, theRBMtrial teamfoundthat theprojectshadmade considerable progress, but also that making fundamental shifts in the way of working take time and (initially at least) additional resources. It requires iterative and continuous processes. Staffing, or the profile of project teammembers, and project teamcompositionare emergingaskey factors for success. Project staff has acknowledgedthat theymayrequireadditionalskillsbeyonddisciplinaryexpertise, such as skills in coordination, facilitation, engagement, communications, and participatoryand learning-orientedM&E.TheRBMtrial teamisusing thefindings fromthesurvey toexplorehowadditional support canbeprovided in suchareasas engagingwith stakeholders andusingRBM. 4.10 RollingOutResults-BasedManagement forCCAFS asaWhole Opportunities for changing theprogrammatic approach toproject planning, imple- mentation andMEL emerged when CCAFSwas approaching the end of its first phase in2014.Themandate to implement anRBMtrial cameat aperfect time– it was initiated in advance so that it could inform the planning of the CCAFS extension phase (2015–2016), as well as Phase 2 proposal development (2017–2022). With a time lag of several months between the RBM trial and CCAFSas awhole, the programplanning process andTOCswere developed and defined for all four research and five regional programs as a first step to putting together the newprogramportfolio (Schuetz et al. 2014e). Figure 4.4 provides an illustration of one research theme’s impact pathway component with its regional elements, indicators andoutcome targets. ExperienceinCPWFalsoshowsthatanintenseprocessisrequiredtofinalize the program portfolio and allow for the appropriate triangulation and harmonization between thematic perspective, regional context and individual project proposals to ensure programmatic coherence, cohesion and its relevance and potential for impact (Hall et al. 2014;Biswaset al. 2008).This requires intensebilateral virtual preparationbetween researchand regional teams, facilitated face-to-face time (e.g. in the formofworkshops orwriteshops), and follow-upwork. Intensiveworkshops bring together project leaders, key national and regional partners and core program 68 T.Schuetz et al.