Abstract

Investing in research is a long-term, risky proposition. In agriculture, it could take fifteen years or more for a research finding to show an improvement in a farmer’s field. Yet, research institutions, like other organizations it needs to be evaluated. For more than twenty years, independent panels of outside experts have evaluated each of the international research centers that the Consultative Group of International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) supports. This paper examines the evolution of this review system, outlines the key methodological challenges faced, and draws lessons for others engaged in evaluating research institutions. It notes that the scope of the CGIAR reviews have been broadened over time in response to users’ concerns. Reviews now cover four dimensions of performance: research results, quality and relevance of research, vision and strategic directions, and management efficiency. The methodological challenges faced in measurement, valuation, and attribution are reviewed, along with practices found to be helpful in addressing these concerns. The paper concludes that the panel approach to institutional evaluation has served CGIAR’s needs well, and recommends it as an evaluation technique for integrating quantitative and qualitative dimensions of institutional performance.