2011 THEME MEETING

AND STRATEGIC PLANNING EVALUATION

Total respondents = 34

(number in brackets = number of responses for each choice)

THEME MEETINGS

1. How would you rate the THEME meetings you attended?

Very good (21)

Good (5)

Excellent (2)

Average (1)

2. What did you LEAST like about the THEME meetings you participated in?

Lack of connection to other themes (13)

Poor balance between review of current operations and future planning (12)

Some discussions were inconclusive (12)

Lack of time (3)

Some discussions were too long (3)

Insufficient involvement of key people (2)

3. What did you MOST appreciate about the THEME meetings you participated in?

Good organization, facilitation, and time management (15)

Focused reviews on specific topics (13)

Good brainstorming and discussion of new ideas (8)

Productive discussions with enough time for thorough exploration (8)

Participation of regional staff (7)

Venue and food (1)

4. Any other comments about the THEME meetings?

  • I would have expected more planning than reviewing. Some of the reviews of past activities were too exhaustive and did not achieve any conclusions.
  • Mechanical check-off of Objectives and Activity accomplishments.
  • Good use of video phone link to include people who could not attend personally. This should be a norm for the future, with improved systems.
  • Because all theme meetings were held at HQ, I was able to attend and/or participate in all.
  • Not enough time for in-depth discussions. ‘Focused discussions’ in Breeding were stimulating; innovative formats for delivery should be encouraged.
  • Lack of time for the Breeding debate.
  • I only attended bits of the Breeding meeting but the discussions were good and I liked the debate format but it needed snappier speakers and perhaps running it again would help next time.
  • Did not completely focus on the theme’s strategic planning.
  • To save the budget for the theme meeting, the meeting was condensed to finish in two days.
  • Need more opportunities for brainstorming.
  • Need to focus more on the future research and development strategies of a theme; think more how to link the theme activities.
  • I mostly participated via video conferencing and this worked well once the bugs were sorted out. There were big problems with the microphones, and the systems used worked well for giving and viewing presentations but were very poor for discussions.It did provide a very time efficient and cost-effective way of participating and I really think we need to persist with it as it can work well. There were some real advantages to be able to jump in and out of meetings as needed and to be able to focus on only those sessions of real interest.
  • We used the Joinnet system to connect 2 staff from international offices. The Joinnet did not work well due to slow connection speed. Also, the meeting could be better organized as the theme leader is not stationed at HQ, communication with the HQ administrative staff could have been better pre- and post-meeting so we would know how to assist the theme leader in planning the event.
  • When questions were askedduringthe seminar on project budgeting, the presenter always responded that Mr. Olatifede or Jessica could better answer the questions. Next time, invite Mr. Olatifede or Jessica to the seminarso we can get the answers quickly.
  • Venue and schedule should be announced to allow other interested people to attend.
  • In addition to reporting on last year’s activities,we all may have to jointly discuss planned key activities/priorities areas for the next year.
  • Need to engage regional staff in investing in videoconference equipment.
  • I think we should have all theme meetings in one or two weeks and let all research staff join in. If we have all theme meetings in a week, there are several advantages: 1) The theme leaders and key scientists can attend all theme meetings and generate views more widely across the themes; 2) the general topics, such as 'how to take good pictures' and 'team work' could be given to all participants, not just a theme group; 3) regional staff have a chance to join all theme meetings, not just one.
  • Cooperation of units on different crops for feedback trace or new proposals needs more discussion with supported unit.
  • If there is a plan to present a proposal in the meeting that involves and affects the regional centers, it is best to disseminate or send it earlier to those involved (that is, before the meeting) so that the staff, including the regional director, can deliberate on it and decide whether to support or not. The staff representing the regional center (attending the meeting) will thus convey that decision to the proponent during the meeting.
  • Good brainstorming and discussion of new ideas and non-technical training, such as communication skills
  • Can we have a four-theme meeting that integrates all theme activities in a series of presentations to show the linkages and connections among different themes? The theme meeting nowadays seems to focus on their own activities, seldom see the connection. In addition, I also noticed that some of the issues have been discussed for years, and we actually know what to do, but nobody really does it -- such as documentation of your work/achievements. Who will be the one to follow up?
  • The Theme Production Meeting was a bit too long (2.5 days). The other theme meetings were about right (2 days).

GLOBAL STRATEGIC PLANNING

5. If you attended the two-day STRATEGIC PLANNING event in the Auditorium: How would you rate this event?

Very good (11)

Good (5)

Average (2)

Excellent (1)

6. What did you MOST appreciate about the STRATEGIC PLANNING event?

Concise and informative presentations (13)

Good organization, facilitation, and time management (11)

Participation of regional staff (6)

Productive discussions with enough time for thorough exploration (6)

Good brainstorming and discussion of new ideas (3)

Venue and food (1)

7. What did you LEAST like about the STRATEGIC PLANNING event?

Lack of time for substantive questions (12)

Poor balance between review of current operations and future planning (11)

Insufficient involvement of key people (4)

Presentations were too long (3)

Venue and food (1)

8. Any other comments about the STRATEGIC PLANNING event?

  • This was more of an update on activities (Work Planning) than a strategic planning (which was partly captured in the focused discussions).There should have been an opportunity for broader attendance of the focused discussions -- perhaps a panel-type of discussion?
  • Attendance of the target group of participants should be made mandatory.
  • Review of accomplishments and proposals for future targets was good. But there was little general discussion of integration of themes, regions, budgets.
  • Best review of regions activities (esp. SE Asia, and SAsia) we’ve seen.
  • Too much domination of questions by the usual suspects and lack of attendance by many staff that should have been there. I believe it should be compulsory but many HQ staff did not seemingly see it that way.
  • The powerpoints were much better than previous years and I felt the speakers were more professional and disciplined. Some needed their PPs spell-checked; perhaps we should offer this service the prior afternoon or some such.
  • Too much discussion of what has already been done; not enough discussion of what we can or should be doing.
  • Staff evaluations: Can HR provide for evaluations of management as well?
  • Need to focus more on the future research and development strategies of the center.
  • Worked well to provide a summary overview of key regional and thematic issues.
  • I hope join in more future planning in AVRDC-HQ.
  • This type of a joint strategic planning at HQ is important to engage all staff. We may have to think about have two full days or 2½ days instead of 1½ day.
  • Linkage with medium/long term goals of theCenter was lacking in most presentations. It is disappointing that there was no presentation from DDG-R on impact or modification on this issue.
  • Suggest Human Resourcespresent more realistic strategies for the staff awards, rather than theoretical ones. How are the awards going to motivate staff performance?
  • Are there any criteria for the Center to decide whether it will extend a staff member’s contractor not?
  • Talking about cost saving: suggest Finance show the top ten highest expenditures of the Center, and share solutions on how to reduce the cost for each of them. After all, every staff has the responsibility to save the Center's cost. We all have the right to know.
  • Appreciated the closing remarks by the Director of the Board.
  • Poor balance between review of current operations and future planning. Disappointed by the presentations given by Human Resources and Finance.
  • Closing comments by our Board Chairman were very insightful and useful.

FOCUSED DISCUSSIONS

9. If you attended the two days of FOCUSED DISCUSSIONS following the Strategic Planning: How would you rate this meeting?

Excellent (5)

Good (2)

Very good (1)

10. Any other comments about the FOCUSED DISCUSSION meeting?

  • I felt the Center was beginning to address issues strategically, i.e., comprehend the issues and define where we stand (as opposed to following the tide and attempting to fit).
  • This is an excellent venue to do cross-thematic and cross-regional discussion. Although I understand the wish to include larger part of the Center’s staff, at the same time I can see the merit of having a limited number of people to streamline and focus the discussion. The compromise will be to request those present in the meeting to act as representatives of their respective groups. The representative voices the group’s collective opinion, suggestions, questions in the meeting, and they share with their group how the discussion went during the meeting.
  • Though these 2 days were the best of the week. I felt David Sammons was a strong addition and he did not inhibit the debate. I think we need to repeat this as no one can hide in such interactions and that was good I felt. The questions were truly thorny and I think everyone should introduce one in future and not just the foolish and vocal few such as yours truly.
  • Very productive and animated discussions and some really substantive thinking about key strategic issues. We need similar challenging and perhaps even controversial issues aired next time to help set strategic directions. It may be difficult to capture all the discussion in the minutes and to get wider involvement in these discussions.
  • Several key people were not invited to these discussions. The need to keep the discussion group small is reasonable -- but at the very least, there should be “observer status” so that staff can hear for themselves the kinds of issues being presented and the unfiltered views of management.

Compiled by M. Mecozzi

15 November 2011