Download Part of the Concept or Proposal Review

Impact-Oriented Project Planning
Session 6. Reviewing Concept Notes and
Proposals
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
3.6.1
Objective of Session 6
At the end of this session, the participants will be able
to:
 Discuss the features of a concept or proposal
review.
 Identify the purpose and possible outcomes of a
concept or proposal review.
 Explain the value of open reviews.
 Conduct an open concept review.
Go over the schedule of Day 3
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
3.6.2
Step 4:Approving Projects
and Committing Resources
Program
planning
Identity
objectives
Output to
users
Prepare
proposal
Evaluate
Implement
&
monitor
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Review
proposal
Approve &
Commit
resource
3.6.3
Approval of a Project Proposal and Commitment of
Resources
Must be directly liked to the established
priorities during program formulation
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
3.6.4
• priority
setting
• approve
project
• gap
analysis
• commit
resources
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
3.6.5
Features of a Concept or Proposal Review



An open meeting is scheduled for a fixed period of
time (usually 1-1.5 hrs)
The meeting is chaired by a senior management
person (DG, DDG, or leader of thematic area)
Teams who prepared the CN or proposal, present
their project
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
3.6.6
Features of a Concept or Proposal Review


Other staff from various disciplines and thematic
areas are invited to listen and contribute ideas
Someone from the Finance Office also attends, to
assess the adequacy of the budget
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
3.6.7
Features of a Concept or Proposal Review


If the NARS has a Project Development Officer
(PDO) or equivalent, that person should attend and
take minutes
If there is no PDO minutes should be taken by a
secretary
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
3.6.8
More Features of a Concept or Proposal
Review
The discussion of the CN or proposal has four parts:
Substance
etc.
Scope
partners, etc.
Budget
Presentation
– Scientific value, methodology,
– Size of the project, staffing,
– Is the budget adequate? Greedy?
Realistic?
– How well is the CN or proposal
written?
Will it attract funding?
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
3.6.9
Outcome of a Concept or Proposal Review
The outcome of the review may be:
Approval of the CN and/or proposal for submission
to a funding agency as it is
●
Suggestions on how the CN or proposal must be
improved before submission
●
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
3.6.10
Outcome of a Concept or Proposal Review
The outcome of the review may be:
Rejection of the CN, with reasons for why the concept
is not approved
●
Rejection it is unlikely when a concept note is based
on one of the prioritized projects from program
planning.
●
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
3.6.11
Outcome of a Concept or Proposal Review
The outcome of the review may be:
The more likely outcome would be that revisions may
be requested.
●
●The
results of the meeting are written up and made
available to all staff through a newsletter, internet, or by
memo or e-mail
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
3.6.12
The Value of Open Reviews
NARS project leaders and team members understand
the views of their superiors and
colleagues
● Concepts and proposals are improved by suggestions
of all participants
● The adequacy of the budget is openly discussed
● Project team members learn more about the project
budget process
●
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
3.6.13
The Value of Open Reviews
Project team members learn to give and take
constructive criticism
● Project team members learn about each other’s work;
they may form new professional partnerships
● Reasons for acceptance or rejection are open,
minimizing resentment and loss of morale
●
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
3.6.14
Part of the Concept or Proposal Review
● Involves the process of peer review
● Colleagues read and comment on each other’s work
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
3.6.15
Peer Review
●
●
Is a generic tool
Can be used in many circumstances, not
just project development
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
3.6.16
Giving and Taking Criticism
1.
– Say 2 nice things first
– Make the point
2. Be hard on the issue, soft on the people
Getting to Yes
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
3.6.17
Approval of the Project Proposal by Management
Based on:
●
Clarity of objective
●
Relations between objective, results and activities
●
Cost
●
M&E indicators
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
3.6.18
Management is often assisted by a
NARS personnel committee
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
3.6.19
Required Resources to Implement a Project
● Staff time (salaries)
● Equipment
● Infrastructure: experimental land, laboratories,
shelters, greenhouses
● Operating costs
● General Costs
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
3.6.20
Level of Required Resources is Based
on:
● The type of project to be conducted
● The level of actual investment for the project
● Inherent costs of the activity i.e. research or
other
● Actual available capacity:
» Personnel
» Infrastructure
» equipment
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
3.6.21
Time Frame of a Project Activity
● A project activity will be conducted according to an
established time frame: start date and end date of
the activity
● Different project activities of a project are conducted
in a well-determined logical sequence: project
implementation plan
Thank you!
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
3.6.22