Summary: This interactive session will update staff on the ICRAF-CIFOR Joint Task Force progress, and facilitate constructive feedback into this process for the DG/CIFOR BoT.

The session will explore the strengths and weaknesses of our current science team structures, how these map onto our evolving science and resource needs, and ways to continue adapting to the changing donor landscape. We will invite staff to propose tweaks to our current ways of working, or alternative models for working within the new normal. The session is intended to be solution-oriented as we together discuss the implications of different scenarios on the future of our science teams (science leadership and staff TORs), HQ and Hub operations, and linkages to supporting resource and administrative teams.


Key issues the session will address:


Introduction: Robert Nasi
Facilitator: Paolo Cerutti Co-facilitators for group work: George Schoneveld, Markus Ihalainen, Emily Gallagher


Session format: Interactive small groups with facilitated plenary


1. Introduction: Robert Nasi (ICRAF-CIFOR Joint Task Force update and decision-making moving forward, the relevance of this session discussion in the immediate and long term, Robert’s query about structured science affinity groups v. “a blob”)
Facilitator: Paolo Cerutti

2. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) of science teams
Small Groups (at tables max 8 people per group):
Facilitator: George Schoneveld

20mins (with option for 10extra mins if groups are not ready)
3. Scientific collaboration approaches (Paolo)
Small groups continue at tables, max 8 people per group

Q1: How do we best link our science “teams” with our organizational needs? Do we need teams? Do the teams need to be modified? What would you change? What types of human resources currently exist or have recently existed within CIFOR that could be leveraged to address weaknesses/threats or enhance strengths/opportunities?

Q2: How would this change the way we present CIFOR research areas of interest to the world? Each table should develop at least 1 scenario; maximum of 3 different scenarios

Categorize each scenario as 2 possible options: 1) KEEP TEAMS (retain, revise) | 2) NEW MODEL

4. Share and regroup (Emily with support of Markus and Beth) this could take too long – may need to have people self group without explaining their scenarios…
Each group post their scenarios to the KEEP TEAMS wall or NEW MODEL wall
Each group will have 3 minutes to explain each scenario for scientific collaboration
Facilitator remains active, flagging any duplication of approaches
IF two scenarios overlap, groups will have 3 minutes to discuss divergence/convergence, and decide whether they should be grouped together.
At the end, each person will choose one scenario to work on and stand next to that scenario
If there are more than 8 people, then the groups should subdivide

6. Implications (George)
The new groups will sit together to continue working out the implications of their scenarios
Max 8 people per group
What are the implications for…
Q1: The expectations/TORs of individual “team” members? Team leaders or science leader (if there is one) Senior scientists Junior scientists
Q2: The Hubs?
Q3: Resource support staff (RDP, COE) linkages?
Q4: Administrative support staff linkages?

7. Plenary: Presenting scenarios and actionable steps (Paolo))
Each group has 3 minutes to explain how their scenarios change as they sorted through the implications
Paolo facilitates a discussion, with questions to Robert, about how we proceed to document the proposed scenarios, whether we should develop an advisory group (restructuring committee) to work through each pathway more thoroughly, or follow an alternative pathway to concretize the outcomes of the session.


Participants: All staff


Recommended reading: N/A


Additional reading: N/A


Leave Comments

Be the First to Comment!