IFPRI, NEW DELHI
Impact of Capacity Building
Under NAIP
6-7 June 2014
NASC Complex, New Delhi
Outline
• Background and Objectives
• Typology and Profiling
– Budget and Scope; Participating Institutions; Spread of Tra...
Background, Objectives and
Framework
3
Background
• ICAR continuous to invest in capacity building (CBPs)
in frontier areas
• CBPs in deficit/frontier areas of c...
Capacity Building Program under NAIP
• NAIP (launched 2006) - Contributes to the sustainable
transformation of agricultura...
Key objectives of the study
• Describe typology of CBP, trace input allocation, investments
and outputs of thematic and re...
Framework for Impact assessment
7
STEP 1: BENEFICIARIES OF THE PROGRAMS
Direct beneficiaries Indirect beneficiaries
STEP 2...
8
Survey Group Sample Responses
Received
1. International Training
participants
337 178
2. Control Group (non-trained
scie...
Typology of Capacity Building Program
9
Highlights – Budget and Scope
10
91.33
crores
L&CB
487
Trainees
7.86
Lacs
per
Trainee
23
Countries
122
Institutions
6
Core...
11
122
Total
Institutes
75%
ICAR
Inst.
25%
SAUs
7%
Trainees From IARI
19%
Trainees
81%
Trainees
Top SAUs Participated
3% U...
Spread of Trainees by Subject Matter Divisions
12
Social-Sc
Engg
NRM
Fish
Animal-Sc
Crop-Sc
Hort
6%
8%
10%
14%
19%
20%
23%...
Trainees Profile: Designation (%) and Age / Experience (years)
13
Scientists /
Asst. Prof.
24
Sr. Scientists /
Assoc. Prof...
Female,
19%
Male, 81%
Female,
19%
Male, 81%
Female,
22%
Male, 78%
14
Gender of Trainees
All Trainees
ICAR SAUs
USA + Canada
(70 + 3)
UK+ EU
(8+9)
AU+NZ (4)
SEA (4)
EU – UK, Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, Denmark
SEA – Singapore, Mal...
16
Basic Sciences
48
Processing
Technology
18
Biosecurity
10
Climate
Change 8
Informatics
8
Social Science
and Policy
8
Di...
17
Marker Asst.
Selection 19
Carbon
Trading 7
Bioinformatics
5
Nutraceuticals
5
Allele Mining
5
Biomolecules
5IPR 5
Fermen...
18
Our Top Mentors /Facilitators
Impact Assessment
–Trainees’ Perception
19
Trainees’ Perception about training program
20
• Training objectives
met (92%)
• Training very
comprehensive
(82%)
• Train...
Impact on skill development - research, communication
and linkage & network
Research/
Technical
• Inspired new
research id...
Impact on attitudinal change
Motivational
Change
• More
motivated
to do their
job (83%)
Confidence
Building
• More
confide...
Impact on Trainees’ level-productivity, efficiency and
effectiveness
23
Efficiency
• More
efficient at
work (86%)
Producti...
24
Impact Assessment
– Trainees’ level
Indicators of benefits/outcomes of CBPs in terms of output index
in pre and post training period
Note:-Technologies develo...
Outputs Post-training incremental
gains in output(%)
Journal articles • Bio-security/conservation (50%)
• Informatics (77%...
Outputs Post –training incremental
gains in output (%)
Journal articles • USA (32%)
• Others (48%)
Technologies
developed
...
Outputs Post-training incremental
gains in output(%)
Journal articles • Horticulture (68%)
• Fisheries (12%)
• NRM (33%)
T...
Outputs Post –training incremental
gains in output(%)
Journal articles • Scientist/Assistant professor (51%)
• Senior scie...
Outputs Post –training
incremental
gains in output(%)
Journal articles • 12 weeks (41%)
Technologies
developed
• <12 weeks...
Outputs Post- training
incremental
gains in output(%)
Journal articles • 35-40years (43%)
Technologies developed • <35 yea...
System Wide/Institutional Impact
32
33
Impact of training at institution –
level – impact more in SAU
• Immediate application of training skills in
current wo...
34
Impact of training at institution –
level -impact more in ICAR
• More number of trainees submitting
journal articles fo...
35
Connections leading to Collaborations
Message:
• Developed connections
resulting in a collaborative
projects (55%)
Mess...
Professional recognition - Awards and promotions received post-training
Message:-
• Awards received
(27%)
• Institutional ...
Journal impact factor rating pre and post training (NAAS Rating)
Message:
Post training, the average capacity the scientis...
Benefit and Cost – Some Case Studies
38
Framework
7
Frontier
Science
Areas
11
Scientists
Marker Assisted
Selection
Fermentation
Tech
Nanotechnology
Genome RC
Carb...
40
Theme
(number of scientist)
Conventional
Technology
New technology / Tool
Learnt
Product Application Average
B-C Ratio
...
41
Theme
(number of scientist)
Conventional
Technology
New technology /
Tool Learnt
Product Application Average
B-C Ratio
...
Thank you all
Dr. A. R. Rao, IASRI
Dr. Mukesh Kumar Rana, NBPGR
Dr. Manish Srivastava, IARI
Dr. (Ms.) Anju Arora, IARI
Dr....
National Trainings-Impact Assessment
43
44
National Training – Benefit Streams
18% change in journal articles accepted for publication and accepted as
a first aut...
45
Research/ Technical
Skills
• Training objectives
were met (100%)
• Training inspired
new research ideas
(85%)
• Trainin...
Leadership Management Program – Reflections
Leadership Management Program – Outputs and Outcomes
Skills developed/improved
• Decision making skills
• Management skill...
Response from Directors and
Mentor/Facilitators
48
Response - Directors/Heads of the ICAR institutes & VCs of SAUs.
Research/Technical skills
improved
• Analytical skills
im...
50
Director’s Evaluation of Impact of National Training
Broadened
knowledge base and
forged linkages
outside NARS system
M...
Some examples of inter institutional
collaborations during CBP
51
Example 1
Example 2
• IARI
• CSRI
• ICAR
• NRC on Seed Spices
• CIAH
• CSKHPKV
• IIHR
MICHIGAN
STATE
UNIVERSITY
ICAR
INSTITUTES
Conditions for Success and Way forward
(based on our study findings and suggestions
from mentors/facilitators)
54
Selection criteria:
• Age- designation-education profile of trainee
 “Young age- middle level- doctoral degree” combinati...
• Pre training exposure to research
• Pre training publication
• Preference to proposals with innovative research ideas
• ...
Selection criteria, contd. ….
• Preference to applicants who have identified a
faculty with similar research interests abr...
Training design:
• Prioritize areas and themes for training
• Dovetail training duration to training purpose
 Skill devel...
Training design, contd. …..:
• Focus on quality and depth of training content
• More publications and project proposals du...
Follow-ups/ monitoring:
• Post training follow-ups/ monitoring
 Follow up on accomplishments using base line data
 Facul...
 Trained resource can be used for international / national
training in specific areas.
 Creating central facility – inve...
Implementation :
• Flexible rules, regulations and policies
• Adequate physical space and facilities, infrastructure
inclu...
Inventory :
• Generate discipline wise inventory
 Resource persons (experts/mentors/facilitators/ trained
scientists)
 T...
Thank you
64
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

IFPRI - NAIP - Impact of Capacity Building under NAIP

555 views

Published on


National Agricultural Innovation Project (NAIP), ICAR and the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) organized a two day workshop on ‘Impact of capacity building programs under NAIP’ on June 6-7, 2014 at AP Shinde Auditorium, NASC Complex, Pusa, New Delhi. The main purpose of the workshop was to present and discuss the findings of the impact evaluation study on capacity building programs under NAIP by IFPRI. The scientists from ICAR and agricultural universities were sent abroad to receive training in specialized research techniques. Post-training, scientists were expected to work on collaborative projects within the ICAR, which would further enrich their knowledge and skills, expand their research network and stimulate them’ to improve their productivity, creativity and quality of their research. The ICAR commissioned with IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute) to undertake an evaluation of these capacity building programs under NAIP in July 2012. The workshop shared the findings on the impact of capacity building programs under NAIP and evolve strategies for future capacity building programs

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
555
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

IFPRI - NAIP - Impact of Capacity Building under NAIP

  1. 1. IFPRI, NEW DELHI Impact of Capacity Building Under NAIP 6-7 June 2014 NASC Complex, New Delhi
  2. 2. Outline • Background and Objectives • Typology and Profiling – Budget and Scope; Participating Institutions; Spread of Trainees by SMDs, Themes and Sub-themes; Trainees Profile; Destination Mapping and Top Mentors /Facilitators • Impact Assessment – International Training - Attitudinal Changes; Benefits in terms of publications, technology, IPRs, Proposals, New Projects etc.; – Cost and Benefits – Some case studies – National Training – Some reflections – Leadership Management Program – Utility and follow-up • Conditions for Success of Capacity Building Programmes • Suggestions and Way Forward 2
  3. 3. Background, Objectives and Framework 3
  4. 4. Background • ICAR continuous to invest in capacity building (CBPs) in frontier areas • CBPs in deficit/frontier areas of contemporary relevance and anticipated future • Some flagship programmes:  Summer & Winter schools (SWSs))  Centre of Advanced Faculty Training (CAFTs)  Externally Aided Projects (like AHRD, NATP, NAIP, etc.) 11th Plan - ICAR sponsored 588 SWSs and CAFTs benefitting about 11000 scientists and faculty of NARS
  5. 5. Capacity Building Program under NAIP • NAIP (launched 2006) - Contributes to the sustainable transformation of agricultural research system • NAIP has 4 components; and a part of first component focuses on human resource development • Overall objective of CBP was to enhance technical capacity of NARS:  Predetermined 27 frontier areas of agricultural sciences in advanced labs all across the world
  6. 6. Key objectives of the study • Describe typology of CBP, trace input allocation, investments and outputs of thematic and research skills developed • Document costs, benefits, productivity and efficiency gains of CBP • Undertake a few case studies to assess potential of technological innovation as a result of CBP • Document evidence of collaborative research programs and networks developed as a result of CBPs • Document conditions for success of CBP and the way forward
  7. 7. Framework for Impact assessment 7 STEP 1: BENEFICIARIES OF THE PROGRAMS Direct beneficiaries Indirect beneficiaries STEP 2: OUTPUTS FROM THE TRAINING PROGRAMS STEP 3: OUTCOMES FROM THE TRAINING PROGRAMS
  8. 8. 8 Survey Group Sample Responses Received 1. International Training participants 337 178 2. Control Group (non-trained scientists) 500 164 3. Heads of the institutes/universities 90 12 4. National Training participants 600 30 Framework for Impact assessment contd..
  9. 9. Typology of Capacity Building Program 9
  10. 10. Highlights – Budget and Scope 10 91.33 crores L&CB 487 Trainees 7.86 Lacs per Trainee 23 Countries 122 Institutions 6 Core Themes 27 Sub- Themes 38.26 crores (42%) International Training 94% 12 weeks Training 6% 2-3 Weeks Training Distribution of Training Duration Basic Sciences Processing Technology Biosecurity Climate Change Informatics Social Science and Policy
  11. 11. 11 122 Total Institutes 75% ICAR Inst. 25% SAUs 7% Trainees From IARI 19% Trainees 81% Trainees Top SAUs Participated 3% UAS, Raichur 3% TN Vet and AS University, Chennai 2% PAU, Ludhiana 2% CSK , Palampur Participating Institutions
  12. 12. Spread of Trainees by Subject Matter Divisions 12 Social-Sc Engg NRM Fish Animal-Sc Crop-Sc Hort 6% 8% 10% 14% 19% 20% 23% SMD Horticulture Biggest Gainer followed by Crop Sciences
  13. 13. Trainees Profile: Designation (%) and Age / Experience (years) 13 Scientists / Asst. Prof. 24 Sr. Scientists / Assoc. Prof. 63 Principal Scientists / Prof. 13 Age - 41 Exp. - 13 Senior Scientists a Major Lot Age - 36 Exp. - 8 Age - 46 Exp. - 19
  14. 14. Female, 19% Male, 81% Female, 19% Male, 81% Female, 22% Male, 78% 14 Gender of Trainees All Trainees ICAR SAUs
  15. 15. USA + Canada (70 + 3) UK+ EU (8+9) AU+NZ (4) SEA (4) EU – UK, Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, Denmark SEA – Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines Others – Syria, Peru , Columbia, Mexico, Chile Destination Mapping : Distribution of Trainees (%) : Countries & Institutions
  16. 16. 16 Basic Sciences 48 Processing Technology 18 Biosecurity 10 Climate Change 8 Informatics 8 Social Science and Policy 8 Distribution of Trainees (%) by Core Theme Areas
  17. 17. 17 Marker Asst. Selection 19 Carbon Trading 7 Bioinformatics 5 Nutraceuticals 5 Allele Mining 5 Biomolecules 5IPR 5 Fermentation Tech 4 Nanotech 4 Sensor Based Apps 4 Other Sub- Theme Areas 37 Distribution of Trainees (%) by Sub-Theme Areas
  18. 18. 18 Our Top Mentors /Facilitators
  19. 19. Impact Assessment –Trainees’ Perception 19
  20. 20. Trainees’ Perception about training program 20 • Training objectives met (92%) • Training very comprehensive (82%) • Training content directly relevant to area of work (82%)
  21. 21. Impact on skill development - research, communication and linkage & network Research/ Technical • Inspired new research ideas (94%) • Learnt, which is immediately applied to current work 80%) Presentation/ Writing •Improved presentation/ writing skills (65%) Linkage & network • Develop linkages at universities/ institutes visited (33%)
  22. 22. Impact on attitudinal change Motivational Change • More motivated to do their job (83%) Confidence Building • More confident in their position (86%) Expectations at work place • Increased expectations from trainee, at work (85%).
  23. 23. Impact on Trainees’ level-productivity, efficiency and effectiveness 23 Efficiency • More efficient at work (86%) Productivity • Increase in productivity (86%) Effectiveness • Increase in effectiveness of trainees in their current organisation (86%)
  24. 24. 24 Impact Assessment – Trainees’ level
  25. 25. Indicators of benefits/outcomes of CBPs in terms of output index in pre and post training period Note:-Technologies developed are defined application of techniques for improving productivity through developing new varieties/breed. Possible technologies are:- prototype, genetic/stock, variety/breed, product, vaccine, diagnostic kit, process, methodology/technique. 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 162 136 135 133 117 113 109 107 107 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Project Proposals submitted to non-ICAR Journal articles accepted for publication Patents submitted Project Proposals submitted Journal articles accepted for publication as a first author Project Proposals submitted to ICAR Technologies developed as a CO-PI Technologies developed as a PI Technologies developed as a PI & CO-PI Index pre training Index post training
  26. 26. Outputs Post-training incremental gains in output(%) Journal articles • Bio-security/conservation (50%) • Informatics (77%) • Processing technology (45%) • Basic Sciences (34%) Technologies developed • Bio -security/conservation (6%) • Processing technology (15%) • Basic Sciences (4%) Patent submitted • Processing technology (5%) • Basic sciences(12%) Project proposals submitted • Basic Sciences (13%) • Informatics (33%) Message: Biosecurity/conservation, Basic sciences, Processing Technology & Informatics have gained more Theme-wise benefits: publications, project proposals, technological innovations & patents submitted……….cont….
  27. 27. Outputs Post –training incremental gains in output (%) Journal articles • USA (32%) • Others (48%) Technologies developed • Others (7%) • USA (9%) Patent submitted • Netherlands (100%) • USA (75%) Project proposals submitted • Netherlands (50%) • USA (23%) Message: Training-location – Trainees trained at USA have gained more with respect to outputs Training Location –wise analysis of benefits: publications, project proposals, technological innovations & patents submitted……….contd.
  28. 28. Outputs Post-training incremental gains in output(%) Journal articles • Horticulture (68%) • Fisheries (12%) • NRM (33%) Technologies developed • Crop Sciences (24%) • Horticulture (33%) • NRM (32%) • Fisheries (24%) • Animal Sciences (5%) Patent Submitted • Agricultural Engineering (30%) Project Proposals submitted • Crop Sciences(68%) • Horticulture (2%) Message: Horticulture, Crop Sciences and NRM Management have more gains with respect to outputs Division analysis of benefits: publications, organizing events, project proposals, technological innovations & patents submitted……….contd.
  29. 29. Outputs Post –training incremental gains in output(%) Journal articles • Scientist/Assistant professor (51%) • Senior scientist/Associate professor (26%) Technologies developed • Scientist/Assistant professor (32%) • Senior scientist/Associate professor (56%) Patent submitted • Senior Scientist/Assistant professor (80%) • Principal scientist/professor (22%) Project Proposals submitted • Senior scientist/Associate professor (10%) • Principal scientist/professor (23%) • Senior scientist/Associate Professor have gained more with respect to journal articles accepted for publication, followed by technologies developed, patent and project proposal submitted. • Principal scientist/Professor have gained more with respect to patent and project proposals submitted. Designation –wise analysis of benefits: publications, project proposals, technological innovations & patents submitted……….contd.
  30. 30. Outputs Post –training incremental gains in output(%) Journal articles • 12 weeks (41%) Technologies developed • <12 weeks (15%) Patent submitted • 12 weeks(42%) Project proposals submitted • 12 weeks(24%) Message: Duration- Trainees underwent training for 12 weeks (3 months) had more gains with respect to outputs. Duration –wise analysis of benefits: publications, project proposals, technological innovations & patents submitted……….contd.
  31. 31. Outputs Post- training incremental gains in output(%) Journal articles • 35-40years (43%) Technologies developed • <35 years(52%) • 35-40 years(31%) Patent submitted • 40-45 years(91%) Project Proposals submitted • 40-45years(46%) Message: • Trainees with age of < 35 years and 35-40 years had gained with respect to journal articles accepted for publication and technologies developed. • Those of >40 years had gained more with respect to patents and project proposals submitted. Age-wise analysis of benefits: publications, project proposals, technological innovations & patents submitted……….contd.
  32. 32. System Wide/Institutional Impact 32
  33. 33. 33 Impact of training at institution – level – impact more in SAU • Immediate application of training skills in current work area • High impact on presentation/writing skills • High impact on networking / linkage skills to enhance research
  34. 34. 34 Impact of training at institution – level -impact more in ICAR • More number of trainees submitting journal articles for publication • Application of techniques learnt at training in developing new project proposals • More joint publications with supervisors
  35. 35. 35 Connections leading to Collaborations Message: • Developed connections resulting in a collaborative projects (55%) Message • Trainees initiated communication resulting in a collaborative project (47%) • Organisations initiated communication resulting in a collaborative project (8%)
  36. 36. Professional recognition - Awards and promotions received post-training Message:- • Awards received (27%) • Institutional award (17%) • National award(7%) • State-level award (3%) Message:- • Promotions (35%)
  37. 37. Journal impact factor rating pre and post training (NAAS Rating) Message: Post training, the average capacity the scientists of publishing in high rated journals had increased. The figure indicates that scientists had published papers in journal articles with rating 1-4.9 but post-training, they had been able to published more in journal articles with rating 5-10.9. 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 11-11.9 12-12.9 14-14.9 Number of papers published pre-training Number of paper published post- training 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 1-1.9 2-2.9 3-3.9 4-4.9 5-5.9 6-6.9 7-7.9 8-8.9 9-9.9 10-10.9 11-11.9 12-12.9 13-13.9 14-14.9 Percentage of papers published by the scientists in the respective journal impact factor category before training Percentage of papers published by the scientists in the respective journal impact factor category after training
  38. 38. Benefit and Cost – Some Case Studies 38
  39. 39. Framework 7 Frontier Science Areas 11 Scientists Marker Assisted Selection Fermentation Tech Nanotechnology Genome RC Carbon Trading Nutraceuticals Allele Mining Science Conventional Technology (Control) New Technique Learnt (Treatment) Multiple Gains from New Technology Time Convenience Precision Efficiency Probability Economy Productivity Profitability Profitability
  40. 40. 40 Theme (number of scientist) Conventional Technology New technology / Tool Learnt Product Application Average B-C Ratio Marker Assisted Selection (123) Phenotypic Selection Marker Assisted Selection HY Cattle Cattle Improvement 11.35 PB - 1121 MAS (Disease Resistant) Disease Resistant PB Rice Improvement 9.32 PB - 1121 MAS (Salt Tolerance) Salt Tolerant PB Rice Improvement 9.31 Nanotechnology (19) Biochar Nano-patterning Nano-biochar Fertilizer Economy 1.95 Photo degradable polymer Bio-based polymer Biobased polymeric films Packaging 1.13 Conventional nano-fibre Nano-fibre (electro- spinning technique) Cellulose nanofibre Water/air filters 1.25 Fermentation technology (15) Conventional Nisin production Improved Nisin production Nisin (biological preservative) Bio- preservative 1.40 Bio-ethanol Improved Bio-ethanol Cellulosic ethanol Bio-ethanol 1.15 Benefit- Cost Ratio – Case Studies (1) Figures in brackets indicate number of trainees. Note: Details worked out after discussion with the concerned/selected trained scientist/s. B-C ratios estimated with needed assumptions, being further checked and subjected to sensitivity analysis
  41. 41. 41 Theme (number of scientist) Conventional Technology New technology / Tool Learnt Product Application Average B-C Ratio Carbon Trading / Sequestration (19) IPCC Tire – I IPCC Tire – II and III Carbon Credits Carbon Trading 1.85 IPCC Tire – I IPCC Tire – II (GC – for estimation of GHGs) GHG reduction factors GHGs accounting / inventory 2.52 Genome Resource Conservation (13) Genetic analysis (w.o automation) Automation in Genetic Analysis (automation) All economic traits Crop/ Animal Improvement 3.88 Genome Resource Conservation (Hort.) Conventional Breeding DNA Marker Analysis Hybrid Crop Improvement 1.009 Nutraceutical (Fisheries) (20) Chemo-therapy / anti-biotics Nutraceutical Nutraceuticals Fish Shrimp / Fish Feed 1.17 Allele Mining (14) SSH cDNA library Microarray Identification of special Genes Shrimp / Fish Feed 25 times cost efficient Benefit- Cost Ratio - Case Studies (2) Figures in brackets indicate number of trainees. Note: Details worked out after discussion with the concerned/selected trained scientist/s. B-C ratios estimated with needed assumptions, being further checked and subjected to sensitivity analysis
  42. 42. Thank you all Dr. A. R. Rao, IASRI Dr. Mukesh Kumar Rana, NBPGR Dr. Manish Srivastava, IARI Dr. (Ms.) Anju Arora, IARI Dr. (Ms.) Sunita Singh, IARI Dr. (Ms.) Sangeetha Lenka, IISS Dr. M. S. Sekar, CIBA Dr. Ambasankar, CIBA Dr. Sachin Dey, NDRI Dr. Sandip Gangil, CIAE Dr. Vigneswaran, N., CIRCOT Dr. A.K. Singh, IARI Dr. Vij, NBAGR 42
  43. 43. National Trainings-Impact Assessment 43
  44. 44. 44 National Training – Benefit Streams 18% change in journal articles accepted for publication and accepted as a first author 30% change in journal articles accepted for publication in subject area trained Outputs Average output pre-training Average output post- training % change in output Journal articles accepted for publication 0.6 1.65 18 Journal articles accepted for publication as a first author 0.25 0.7 18 Journal articles accepted for publication in subject area trained 0.05 0.2 30 Annual reports/conference proceedings published as a first editor 0.3 0.35 2
  45. 45. 45 Research/ Technical Skills • Training objectives were met (100%) • Training inspired new research ideas (85%) • Training was complete and comprehensive(74%) • More efficient at work (75%) Presentation/ Writing Skills • Improved presentation/wri ting skills (65%) Linkage & network skills • Develop connections & linkages (55%) Analysis of Skills - research, communication and linkage & network
  46. 46. Leadership Management Program – Reflections
  47. 47. Leadership Management Program – Outputs and Outcomes Skills developed/improved • Decision making skills • Management skills • Communication skills • Useful in problem solving • Better understanding of leadership process • Developing a leadership plan for long-term perspective with effective utilization of institute resourcesFollow-up Actions • Skills to be used for better research management process • Training modules developed for grassroots level workers and stakeholders • Efficiency improved in managing programs • Collaborations developed OUTPUTS OUTCOMES
  48. 48. Response from Directors and Mentor/Facilitators 48
  49. 49. Response - Directors/Heads of the ICAR institutes & VCs of SAUs. Research/Technical skills improved • Analytical skills improved • Improvement in formulating better project proposals • Technical capacity improved (through new techniques learned) Soft skills development • Peer interaction improved • Motivation improved • Communication skills improved • Confidence to conduct quality research • Special skills to do demand driven research Linkages developed • International contacts developed • Interactions with global knowledge resource OUTCOMES IMPACT New Projects Initiated Publishing reports Help in current projects Long-run projects planned to maintain relations with global institutions International Trainings
  50. 50. 50 Director’s Evaluation of Impact of National Training Broadened knowledge base and forged linkages outside NARS system Many externally projects are being obtained Establishing linkage with private sector facilitated
  51. 51. Some examples of inter institutional collaborations during CBP 51
  52. 52. Example 1
  53. 53. Example 2 • IARI • CSRI • ICAR • NRC on Seed Spices • CIAH • CSKHPKV • IIHR MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ICAR INSTITUTES
  54. 54. Conditions for Success and Way forward (based on our study findings and suggestions from mentors/facilitators) 54
  55. 55. Selection criteria: • Age- designation-education profile of trainee  “Young age- middle level- doctoral degree” combination more potential for technology development  “Senior” level more suited for developing project proposals; patents • Gender balance • Balancing ICAR and SAU scientists
  56. 56. • Pre training exposure to research • Pre training publication • Preference to proposals with innovative research ideas • Preference to proposals that have better potential for long-run collaborative research Selection criteria, contd. ….
  57. 57. Selection criteria, contd. …. • Preference to applicants who have identified a faculty with similar research interests abroad and initiated some contacts • Preference to applicants who have their own data/ samples to work on to ensure accountability and ownership on output 57
  58. 58. Training design: • Prioritize areas and themes for training • Dovetail training duration to training purpose  Skill development – shortest duration  Updating expertise – medium duration (max. 12 weeks)  Frontier research – longest duration (min. 6 months) • Orientation of trainees to acclimatize to foreign country conditions
  59. 59. Training design, contd. …..: • Focus on quality and depth of training content • More publications and project proposals during training • Rewards for on-training publications • Research project designed for long term collaborations between trainee and mentor (both at individual and institutional levels) • Involvement with superiors in designing the training
  60. 60. Follow-ups/ monitoring: • Post training follow-ups/ monitoring  Follow up on accomplishments using base line data  Faculty mentor travel back to monitor and assess progress  Mandatory output in terms of joint publications/continued research collaborations  Annual event for fostering networking among trainees on return to share experiences , assist is research and teaching  Post training multidisciplinary workshops.
  61. 61.  Trained resource can be used for international / national training in specific areas.  Creating central facility – investment intensive equipment – Nanotech, MAS – to promote use of modern science  Attach trained resource to the industry for scaling up – provide venture capital  Invest in periodic up-gradation of the skills of the trainees 61 Follow-ups/ monitoring , contd. ….
  62. 62. Implementation : • Flexible rules, regulations and policies • Adequate physical space and facilities, infrastructure including ICT • Supportive leadership • Encouragement from seniors and leaders • Financial resources  Collaborative multidisciplinary research grants for long-run collaborative research  Seed grants for short run collaborative research.  Financial supports to trainees during training like, bench fee, travel funds etc. 62
  63. 63. Inventory : • Generate discipline wise inventory  Resource persons (experts/mentors/facilitators/ trained scientists)  Training manuals  Suggestions and recommendations for future lines of work • Inventory should be in the public domain – upload on ICAR website 63
  64. 64. Thank you 64

×