Indicator Guidance 2018

CGIAR Common Reporting Indicators

#C1 Innovations - (pdf print version - 1MB - 16.11.2018)

#C2 Partnerships - This year we only asked for partners (not partnerships) to be listed as per the instructions in the template .

#C3 Participants in CapDev Activities - (pdf print version - 816KB - 21.12.2018)

#C4 Peer review paper - (pdf print version - 537KB - 16.11.2018)

#I1 Policies - (pdf print version - 970KB - 16.11.2018)

#I2 Altmetrics* - (pdf print version - 1MB - 16.11.2018)

*only for CRPs with Altmetrics subscription

#I3/4 Projected Uptake (people/hectar) - (pdf print version - xxKB - xx.xx.2018 - in progress)

Linkages between Common Reporting Indicators click here

From the System Council paper, Cali, Columbia, Nov. 2017 on a common results indicator set for the CGIAR System (full version):

CGIAR’s Funders – particularly those providing System-level (W1&2) funding – require regular System-level quantitative monitoring of outputs and outcomes based on trustworthy data. Different types of CRPs will report on specific indicators related to their own research context, but a way of adding up the results from different types of research in a meaningful fashion for CGIAR as a whole is also required - one that reflects the interdependent and coherent nature of its research Portfolio.

Based on consultation with research leaders and CGIAR Monitoring and Evaluation specialists through the MELCOP (CGIAR Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Community of Practice), and a selection of Funders, a set of common results indicators has been identified for the purpose of high-level, consistent quantitative reporting.

Seven principles governed the selection of the common results indicator set:

1. Aggregable indicators relevant to all parts of the System that produces diverse outputs (for example, 'people benefiting' rather than 'varieties released') - A few additional indicators which are of potential interest to Funders but only reportable by a few CRPs, e.g. livestock or water, may also be included in CGIAR annual reporting – specifics are under discussion;

2. A representative range of indicators sufficient to demonstrate progress in the spheres of control, influence and interest of CGIAR (See conceptual framework in SC3-03, 17 Nov 2016);

3. Indicators which include current and projected results from the ongoing research program (Following best practice from the International Development Innovation Alliance of Funders, IDIA), to complement adoption and impact data collected on past research;

4. Demand from Funders for some specific indicators;

5. Finding an optimal balance between transparent reporting and maintaining a focus on cost-efficiency;

6. Availability of credible, robust data based on checkable evidence (note: a guidance manual will specify definitions, data sources, quality and responsibility for quality checks); and

7. Indicators can be reported on through (in future) automated Management Information Systems, not as a separate exercise (and reducing the work required, this will also allow dis-/ aggregation and reporting against areas of interest, such as sub-IDOs, Funders, or flagships).

An important lesson from the past, however (both in CGIAR - Immonen and Cooksy (2014) Using performance measurement to assess research: Lessons learned from the international agricultural research centers and elsewhere) is that these indicators should not be used mechanistically to compare research programs or in decision-making on funding. Mechanistic approaches encourage gaming of indicators (for example, outputs, publications and varieties can multiply when their number is considered as an indicator of success) and offer perverse incentives to focus on what is easy to measure (e.g. peer reviewed papers) as opposed to sustained outcomes (adoption and impact).

See for detailed guidance on each agreed indicator respective sections below.