• Please refer to the Home page for all Upcoming Events and Event recordings.

Please refer to the Home page for all Upcoming Events and Event recordings.

• 17 March 2026: Sounding Board Meeting - Planning Module MVP 2 Testing: Meeting recording l Slide deck

• 12 February 2026: Survey Report PRMS Planning Module & 2026 Planning Process: Meeting recording l Slide deck

• 6 November 2025: 2026 Planning Module Training Session: Meeting recording l Slide deck

• 5 November 2025: 2026 Planning Information Sharing Sessions: Meeting recording (8.30 am CET) Meeting recording (1pm CET) l Slide deck | Slide deck 2 

• 2026 Planning Information Sharing Sessions: Meeting recording (8.30 am CET) Meeting recording (1pm CET)l Slide deck 

• 11 September 2025 (15.00 - 16.00 CEST) 6th Sounding Board Meeting for PRMS Planning Module v2 Enhancements   Meeting recording l Slide deck

• 28 August 2025 (15.00 - 16.00 CEST) 5th Sounding Board Meeting for PRMS Planning Module v2 Enhancements   Meeting recording l Slide deck

• 07 August 2025 (15.00 - 16.00 CEST) 4th Sounding Board Meeting for PRMS Planning Module v2 Enhancements   Meeting recording l Slide deck

• 31 July 2025 (13.00 - 14.00 CEST) 3rd Sounding Board Meeting for PRMS Planning Module v2 Enhancements   Meeting recording l Slide deck

• 24 July 2025 (13.00 - 14.00 CEST) 2nd Sounding Board Meeting for PRMS Planning Module v2 Enhancements   Meeting recording l Slide deck

• 18 July 2025 (13.00 - 14.00) 1st Sounding Board for PRMS    Meeting recording l Slide deck

• ToC Tool - Science Program and Accelerator Users (6 November 2026) | Excel Doc 

• Guidance for Programs’ and Accelerators’ 2026 Plans of Results and Budgets (PORB) (13 Nov formatted version) l PDF

• PRMS Planning Module l link​​

• PRMS Planning Module User Guide l  PDF 

• Final W1/2 planning envelopes by Program and Accelerator l PDF

• Latest projected 2030 and 2040 benefits l PDF

• Mapping of W3/bilateral projects for 2025-30 Programs and Accelerators l Dashboard

• P/A ToC MELIA Plan Update Guidance for 2026 (7 Nov version) l PDF l Video

• Guidance for Carryover (October 2025)  PDF 

• Evaluating CGIAR Digital tools to Shape the Next Stage of the Planning Module tool (July 2025) l PDF

• User Research  Report PRMS Planning Module (November 2025) | PDF 

• Recommendations for Enhancing PRMS Planning Tools (2025–2030) | PDF 

• Planning Module Post-Release Report | PDF 

• Prioritization Guidance now available: Program and Accelerator-level prioritization guidance, October 2025.pdf 

1. Could kindly reconfirm what should be included as part of the 10% of of each Program’s/ Accelerator’s total W1/2 envelope as part of the cross-cutting management and operating costs (AoW). 

All Programs and Accelerators — with the exception of Capacity Sharing at this stage — should plan for a standard allocation of USD 510,000 under the System Organization to cover cross-cutting management and operating costs (AoW 0). This amount should include the costs of the Director, administrative support, meetings and workshops, travel, short-term consultancies, and miscellaneous operating expenses.

Beyond this standard allocation, Programs and Accelerators are expected to maintain their cross-cutting management and operating costs at a minimum viable level, not exceeding 10% of their total W1/2 envelope. Any exceptions to this ceiling should be justified and require endorsement from the respective Program or Accelerator Leadership Team.

2. Could you please confirm whether the System Organization’s overheads for consultants, travel, and other Director-related operating costs are included within the standard allocation of USD 510,000?
   The System Organization does not charge overhead.  If there should be any administrative fees incurred, it will need to be accommodated within the USD 510,000 umbrella. Please coordinate with the SO/Portfolio finance lead (H.L.Weberhofer@cgiar.org) to validate any proposed unit costs allocated to SO. 

3. Regarding the USD 510,000 allocation, should all expenses be recorded under AoW0? For instance, if a short-term consultancy is directly linked to an Accelerator’s mandate or HLO but not to management and leadership functions (as in the case of GENDER, where such costs fall under AoW2), and the Director intends to manage it directly through the System Organization rather than a Center, would it be acceptable to record this under the System Organization in AoW2 instead?
   Directors should coordinate with the System Organization/Portfolio Finance Lead (H.L.Weberhofer@cgiar.org) to obtain the necessary approval other than Program and Accelerator Director staff costs before including any other budget under the System Organization (SO). At present, implementation at the SO level is not permitted, as the SO does not have the operational support services required for execution. All implementation should therefore occur at the Center level.

4. As part of the USD 510,000 allocation to cover cross-cutting management and operating costs (AoW 0), provisions are also made for smaller consultancies and workshops. Could you please clarify the intended purpose of these activities, given that general management costs are already covered under the PMU allocation (10% of the total budget)? 

Not all management costs will be administered under the System Organization (SO); the Program Management Unit (PMU) will remain under the respective Center of hire. In cases where the Center of hire has not yet been determined, the related costs should be temporarily assigned to SO with this explained as part of the planning budget assumption until a long-term hosting arrangement is established and formally agreed upon. 

5. Could you please provide clarification on the guidance within the AoW 0 budget for PMU assignments, which proposes a maximum of 1.25 FTE for Program/Accelerator Coordinators and MELIA Focal Points?
   We fully appreciate that the cost per FTE will vary significantly across different assignments. It will likely be challenging to establish dollar amounts that make sense uniformly across all Programs and Accelerators. We would therefore prefer to maintain some flexibility, guided by a few rules of thumb of 1.25 FTE, as appropriate. Ultimately, there are trade-offs that each Program or Accelerator will need to consider within their specific context — every dollar allocated to an AoW Lead assignment is a dollar not available for Center-proposed deliverables. 

6. Could you please confirm whether the baseline budget envelopes represent new funds for 2026, and whether any 2025 carry-over funds would be in addition to these allocations?
   As outlined in the Guidance on Carryover of Center Funding (2025–2027 Allocations), any 2025 carry-over into 2026 will be factored in during the replan stage in Q2 2026. Therefore, for the current planning exercise, the baseline scenario includes only new funding. 

7. The Centers have not yet received their budget allocation information that is  the breakdown of the allocations per Science Portfolio (SP)/Accelerator and per Center.
   Yes, the budget envelopes shared represent the total allocations per Program and Accelerator. A further breakdown of allocations per Science Portfolio (SP)/Accelerator and per Center will be undertaken at the Program and Accelerator level as part of the planning process, guided by the information provided in the Centers’ submitted packages of deliverables, the updated 2026 Programs and Accelerators Theory of Change, and within the overall total allocation for each Program and Accelerator. 

8. In the budget & planning model, are WorldVeg and CIFOR-ICRAF partner/non-CGIAR organizations?
   Yes. WorldVeg and CIFOR-ICRAF are not CGIAR Centers and should therefore be considered as partner/non-CGIAR organizations within the budget & planning approach 

9. Could you please clarify how to calculate the budget for AoW Lead positions?
   AoW Lead costs should be allocated under AoW 0, not within individual AoWs. This was also the intended approach in 2025, though it may not have been applied consistently. Maintaining this structure will ensure that we can communicate clearly and consistently what is and is not included in each part of the PORB. 

10. In costing the AoW Lead positions, could we decide as a Science Portfolio (SP) to allocate a fixed USD amount for each AoW Lead position, rather than covering 50% of each AoW Lead’s position regardless of cost?
    Yes, that would be acceptable if the Program Leadership Team agrees on this approach. 

11. If the partner to be contracted has not yet been confirmed, how should the related costs be included in the PORB?
    If the partner organization has not yet been identified, the related costs should still be included in the PORB within the relevant AoW and HLO (KPI). The entry should also note this in the budget assumptions (e.g., “Partner to be confirmed”). The partner details can then be updated and formally included during the replan stage in Q2 of 2026. 

12. Within a HLO, it is very difficult to divide the budget between KPIs — for example, what portion went towards knowledge products, capacity development, or innovation outputs.
    You can provide best estimates for how the budget is allocated across KPIs and include budget assumptions to clarify the basis for your estimates. This ensures transparency while recognizing that exact divisions may not always be feasible

13. What will happen if budget allocations change from the base scenario after the submissions have been completed? 

Updates to the PORBs are expected to take place during Q2 2026 as part of the Replan process. 

14. Should AoW 0 include cross-cutting planned MELIA activiities?
    Yes, AoW 0 should include MELIA-related activities. However, all MELIA studies will be captured under the MELIA Studies tab in the PORB. If a MELIA study is cross-cutting, it will be harvested from the ToC and reflected under AoW 0 within this tab for corresponding budget inclusion. 

1. In the proposed management arrangement for finance and communication focal points, does this mean we don’t need to set aside funds for these roles?
   The formally recognized PMU roles will be limited to MELIA and Program Coordinators at 1.25 FTE. Finance support will be centralized and funded within the SO, while communication functions can be resourced within programs either through consultancies or support from designated Center staff depending on individual Program-level needs and budget availability.  

2. When will guidance be provided on PMU communications and finance focal point management arrangements, including related costing?
   The proposal is to transition to a model in which Programs and Accelerators will primarily rely on the System Organization (SO) Finance function and the Centers to meet their finance-related needs. With respect to communications, Programs and Accelerators will have the flexibility to resource their activities in line with their approved and costed communications plans. The funding will, however, remain within the allocated AoW 0 envelope. 

3. In reference to Roland’s note that Programs and Accelerators will rely on the SO Finance function and Centers for finance-related needs, and have flexibility to resource communications activities based on costed communications plans, should communications budgets be included in the PORBs? 

Yes. Communications budgets should be included within the overall PORB budget envelope, in line with each Program’s or Accelerator’s approved and costed communications plan. 

4. Does the System Organization (SO) currently have the administrative capacity to support Science Portfolios (SPs) with functions such as consultant procurement and travel management? Given the cyclical workload and surge periods, is there an HR strategy in place to ensure adequate support?
   At present, implementation at the System Organization (SO) level is not permitted, as the SO does not have the operational support services required for execution. The SO is not intended to manage routine procurement or travel requirements for Programs and Accelerators. It will only handle activities directly managed by the Program or Accelerator Directors, while all other implementation should occur at the Center level. 

1. Do only Directors and Coordinators have access to the Planning Module? If so, does this mean submissions must be made on behalf of all Centers? Alternatively, can Centers be granted access, allowing Programs to review and oversee their inputs?
   The PCU grants initial access to the Planning Module to the Director and Coordinator. It is then the responsibility of each Program or Accelerator to determine and authorize any additional users who require access. 

2. Could a tutorial video be developed to demonstrate how to use the Planning Module, similar to the one previously created for developing the PODs?
   A tutorial video can be developed; however, a detailed user guide — PRMS Planning Module User Guide (updated on 1 November 2025) — is already available and provides comprehensive system instructions with screenshots. The guide can be accessed under the Planning section on the P&R Hub. 

3. Do we need to provide a dollar value per deliverable or Key Performance Indicator (KPI), and a breakdown of costs?
   Yes. For each Key Performance Indicator (KPI), you are required to indicate the aggregated dollar value allocated to that deliverable/KPI as part of the PORB and then include the cost breakdown by main accounts in the Anaplan required Budget categories for financial reporting tab. However for the Budget categories for financial reporting tab, you will only need to include the aggregated cost breakdown by main account per AoW and not per KPI.

4. Could you please clarify where the information on countries served should be entered, given that these often differ from locations of work? This distinction is important for prioritization, as Programs and Accelerators are targeting specific countries served. Including this component would be valuable, as it directly supports our prioritization framework and aligns with what funders expect to see explained in the plans.
   Within the PORB planning module and assuming “countries served” refers to countries of impact, this information will appear in the PORB as mapped from the ToC details under outcomes, but it will not be costed within the PORB. Within Anaplan Budget Categories for financial reporting within the module, this functionality is currently not available and therefore an offline template will be circulated to Program and Accelerator teams by H.L.Weberhofer@cgiar.org to capture these data needed for Anaplan reporting which will apply at the AoW level.

5. What about MELIA activities that are not studies per se (e.g., Theory of Change update workshops at the country level)? Where should we cost them in the ToC?
   If the MELIA activities are linked to a MELIA Study, the costs should be included within the MELIA tab in the PORB. Please refer to the ToC Guidance document for further information on developing MELIA plans. Additional guidance can also be provided by J.Hammond@cgiar.org. Otherwise, the costs can be captured as part of cross-cutting activities in AoW 0.

6. A walk through concrete example showing a deliverable, KPI, budget, geography, and Center would help clarify how the different elements of planning fit together including whether the framework allows for multi-geography or multi-Center deliverables, particularly for Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
   Yes. The walkthrough of the Planning Module was conducted with invitations extended to all Program and Accelerator teams. You can also access the meeting recording on the P&R Hub here.

7. Have the offline templates for completing the PORB been shared with the Centers? If not, it would be helpful to circulate them.
   The templates should be exported directly from the Planning Module. The Coordinator or Finance Focal Point has the necessary access and can perform the export for the Center.

8.  I am unable to add members in the system. The drop-down list is limited and does not allow me to add the Center representatives needed to complete their sections of the PORB as the system displays “no items found.” Could you please advise?
   In this case it notes that the proposed contributor is currently not listed as a PRMS user. Please share the names and email addresses of the colleagues you wish to add to F.Kabaji@cgiar.org to register them in the system, after which you will be able to include them as members.

9. The budget assumption field is not mandatory, correct? In other words, if a budget assumption is not applicable for a specific row or Key Performance Indicator (KPI), one can proceed to the next row or KPI to enter the relevant budget information, right?
   Budget assumptions are mandatory. If these fields are not completed, the system validation will prevent the Center’s PORB from being marked as complete.

10. Could an “Unknown Center” option be added under the organization list? Currently, only Center organizations and the System Organization (SO) appear, but an “Unknown Center” category may be needed in cases where an AoW Lead has not yet been identified.
    For 2026, there will be no provision for an “Unknown Center”. Therefore, in cases where costs — such as the Center of hire for PMU staff or AoW Leads — have not yet been determined, the related costs should be temporarily assigned to the System Organization (SO). This should be explained in the planning budget assumptions until a long-term hosting arrangement is established and formally agreed upon.

11. Is it necessary to create an AoW0 in the ToC application for it to appear in the PRMS, or will it appear there by default?
    The costs included under AoW0 relate to Program Management and cross-cutting activities that are not usually captured in the ToC. And therefore there is no provision for AoW0 within the ToC, but it has been automatically included in the PRMS Planning Module. The Program Leads (Directors) or Coordinators will need to manually set up the cost elements under AoW0 within the Planning Module to allow for costing within the specific centers. Please refer to the PRMS planning module userguide for the set-by-set process for this set up.

12. Given that the AoW tabs are separated within the Center sections, does this mean that AoW0 can include both cross-cutting management activities (e.g., an AoW Lead’s salary) and cross-cutting scientific activities (e.g., genotyping services provided by IRRI for all Centers)? Is this correct?
    Yes. Each Center should include the relevant costs it will incur, such as those related to its respective PMU (e.g., a PMU based at CIP). AoW0 should be configured when setting up the PORB, and this information is automatically replicated across all Center tabs, each of which includes an AoW0 section. Please refer the PRMS planning module userguide for the set-by-set process for this set up.

13. I’m a bit unclear about Anaplan. Is it correct to assume that the figures across all components of a PORB must align with the total package id cost negotiated with the Center? Additionally, does the PORB serve to break down these total costs into allocations for deliverables per AoW, as well as collaboration and other categories?
    When completing the template to capture Anaplan information (Budget Categories for Financial Reporting), ensure that the total aggregate allocation per AoW in the template aligns with the total provided in the PORB.
    
    A reminder: for the Budget Categories for Financial Reporting in the planning tool, you do not need to provide a breakdown of costs per KPI. Only the aggregated costs per AoW, as provided in the PORB, need to be included, now broken down by main accounts.  Please refer to the PRMS Planning Module User Guide for additional guidance.

1. Given the significant budget reductions, would it be possible to consolidate or merge certain Areas of Work (AoWs)?
   If you are considering any changes to your Areas of Work (AoWs), please inform a.poulos@cgiar.org and copy J.Hammond@cgiar.org, who can provide further guidance from the Theory of Change (ToC) and MELIA perspectives. Any such changes should also be clearly indicated in your PORB Cover Note under the section “Summary of Major Changes.” 

2. In Roland’s email dated 3rd Nov (Subject: For GST: W1/2 allocations by Program/ Accelerator and launch of the 2026 Plan of Results and Budget process) there is reference to an AI component related to suggesting KPIs. We already have KPIs derived from our Theories of Change (ToCs), which have been translated into the Package of Deliverables (PoDs) and subsequently into the PORBs, with some adjustments to reflect available funding. Could you please clarify the purpose and intended role of the AI component in this context?
   Please refer to the updated guidance shared by the office of Chief Scientist on 7th Nov that provides the additional guidance on development of SMART Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). For additional support and/or clarification, please also reach out to J.Hammond@cgiar.org 

3. Could you please clarify how the connection between the PODs and the ToCs or PORBs will be established, given that the PODs are not directly reflected? Additionally, since the SMART Key Performance Indicator (KPI) is an High Level Output (HLO-level) KPI, is the intention that the AI tool will help refine it based on the POD titles and descriptions?
   Please refer to the updated guidance shared by the office of Chief Scientist on 7th Nov that provides the additional guidance on development of SMART Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). For additional support and/or clarification, please also reach out to J.Hammond@cgiar.org.

4. Do we need a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) achievement for each deliverable listed for 2026? I’m thinking of work that starts in 2026 but won’t have a meaningful deliverable until, for example, 2027.
   There is indeed a challenge in aligning multi-year planning with annual deliverables. Where deliverables can be completed within a year, they should be reported as results using standard indicator categories, if possible. Where deliverables cannot be completed within the year, milestones should be identified instead.
   The milestones do not need to be the same type as the final product. For example, if the final result is a published article categorizing 50 peanut varieties, the milestone could be “number of peanut varieties analysed”, defined as an “Other Output” indicator. Therefore, each KPI should have an annual target that allows assessment — at the end of the planning year — of whether progress toward the KPI has been achieved, even if the full deliverable will be completed in a later year. This approach ensures annual accountability while maintaining alignment with long-term ToC objectives.

5.  Am I missing something, or are the KPIs and deliverables the same thing?
   Not exactly. The deliverable is the output or product to be completed, while the Key Performance Indicator (KPI) is the mechanism used to track whether that deliverable has been achieved. In other words, the KPI measures progress toward the deliverable.

6. What is considered an appropriate Key Performance Indicator (KPI) for a deliverable? For example, if the deliverable is a policy document but in 2026 we will only reach the draft stage, should the KPI be “number of policy documents” or “number of policy document drafts”? Many activities cannot be finalized within 12 months.
   PORBs are annual and serve an important accountability purpose. We need to assess at the end of each planning year whether a Center delivered the work for which W1/2 funds were allocated. Accordingly, a “0” target for a 2026 KPI would be problematic. Where deliverables span multiple years, the annual KPI should either select an intermediate result or if that is not possible an interim report summarizing the progress made. An intermediate result is not a draft product, rather it should be a finished product which is a step on the way to achieving the final result (e.g. a dataset, which will be used in subsequent years to inform a policy document). If no completed intermediate result can be achieved, the interim report should be defined as an “other output”, with a brief description of what would be achieved as the definition of the indicator (e.g. “Interim report: draft policy document”). Starting in 2026, interim reports should be submitted with other results during annual reporting, and should be short (e.g. one page). We will introduce a mechanism to separate them from completed results. 

7. Can the SMART milestones/KPIs be anything that makes sense, or do they need to fit within the reporting framework (e.g., limited to Innovation Development, Knowledge Product, Capacity Sharing or Others)?
   Yes, after including the Program Specific Indicator description, you will need to map further the indicator to the standard indicator types that is Innovation Development, Knowledge Product, Capacity Sharing or Others. Where “Other Output” indicatory type is selected to define milestones that are to be achieved within the planning year you can then define whatever indicator you want.  

8. Are Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) defined per package or per deliverable? If a KPI only measures that a deliverable or milestone is completed, is it really necessary, since the deliverable itself already shows achievement?
   Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are defined per deliverable. While it may seem redundant, the KPI provides a structured mechanism to record the deliverable, assign responsibility, and specify how achievement will be measured. It is the official way to document both the planning and completion of the deliverable and ensures accountability.

9. A specific Center is included as the lead in the ToC but may not be the only Center contributing to a target. How should the other contributing Centers budget for their respective contributions to the specific target?
   The ToC and the Planning Module allow for the inclusion of multiple Centers assigned to the same target, such as the development of a single innovation. Within the Planning Module, all assigned Centers can view the deliverable and allocate funds accordingly, ensuring that each Center budgets for its portion of the contribution. 

10. Until what date and time will it be possible to make changes to the ToC?
    The Theory of Change (ToC) Board will remain open during the planning process until 14 November. The PORB must be submitted by close of business on 14 November, and all changes to the ToC should be completed by that date.

The ToC will be reopened after the completion of the planning process to allow further edits. However, any changes made after the planning process ends will not be reflected in the planning module and will instead be incorporated during the Replan window scheduled for Q2 2026.

11. In theory does it mean that, the PORB could be completed by the Program/Accelerator PMU without input from the Centers? This seems inconsistent with governance and Center accountability, as Center finance teams usually need to sign off since they are accountable for delivering results based on the approved budget.
    The update to the 2026 Theory of Change (ToC) and the development of the PORBs should ideally be carried out in coordination with the Center delegates and/or designated center MELIA representative. However, the Programs and Accelerators will take the lead in managing this process, based on their preferred program- or accelerator-level workflows. 

12. In the ToC board, can stakeholders edit the Theory of Change, or is this functionality restricted to the Leader only?
    Stakeholders cannot edit the ToC board. Only members, co-leaders, or leaders have editing rights, and the ToC can be published exclusively by the leader. 

1. Should Programs re-run their projected benefit analyses based on the new workplan, and should the W1 allocations be adjusted to reflect these updated projections?  
   The proposed 2026 allocations have been finalized based on Programs’ inputs to the projected benefits model, including 2030 outcome targets and priority countries, as completed on Monday. This does not preclude Programs from reviewing and refining their inputs in the future, as such updates may influence their projected impact contributions. 

1. If any W3 projects have not yet been mapped, is it still possible to add them? 
   The final, updated mapping for Centers’ W3/ bilateral projects is available in the W3/bilateral dashboard and has been added to the PRMS ToC Board tool. If you identify an error, please contact both Marissa Van Epp (m.vanepp@cgiar.org). The next opportunity to map and integrate new W3/bilateral projects will be during Q2 2026 for 2027 planning and reporting (it will not impact 2026 planning or reporting). 

1. The planning guidance document includes, in Annex 1, a requirement for submission of a PORB cover note. Could you please clarify the purpose of this new requirement?
   The cover note is intended for external audiences and will be included in the final formatted P/A PORBs. It should provide an overview of the PORB, how it is structured, the P/A objecyives and focus areas, key updates since the last approval, and priorities under funding scenario.The aim is to help reviewers, including funders and the ISDC, quickly grasp the program’s direction, key changes, and investment priorities.