National Agricultural Innovation Project (NAIP), ICAR and the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) organized a two day workshop on ‘Impact of capacity building programs under NAIP’ on June 6-7, 2014 at AP Shinde Auditorium, NASC Complex, Pusa, New Delhi. The main purpose of the workshop was to present and discuss the findings of the impact evaluation study on capacity building programs under NAIP by IFPRI. The scientists from ICAR and agricultural universities were sent abroad to receive training in specialized research techniques. Post-training, scientists were expected to work on collaborative projects within the ICAR, which would further enrich their knowledge and skills, expand their research network and stimulate them’ to improve their productivity, creativity and quality of their research. The ICAR commissioned with IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute) to undertake an evaluation of these capacity building programs under NAIP in July 2012. The workshop shared the findings on the impact of capacity building programs under NAIP and evolve strategies for future capacity building programs

1. IFPRI, NEW DELHI
Impact of Capacity Building
Under NAIP
6-7 June 2014
NASC Complex, New Delhi

2. Outline
• Background and Objectives
• Typology and Profiling
– Budget and Scope; Participating Institutions; Spread of Trainees by SMDs,
Themes and Sub-themes; Trainees Profile; Destination Mapping and Top
Mentors /Facilitators
• Impact Assessment
– International Training - Attitudinal Changes; Benefits in terms of
publications, technology, IPRs, Proposals, New Projects etc.;
– Cost and Benefits – Some case studies
– National Training – Some reflections
– Leadership Management Program – Utility and follow-up
• Conditions for Success of Capacity Building Programmes
• Suggestions and Way Forward
2

3. Background, Objectives and
Framework
3

4. Background
• ICAR continuous to invest in capacity building (CBPs)
in frontier areas
• CBPs in deficit/frontier areas of contemporary
relevance and anticipated future
• Some flagship programmes:
 Summer & Winter schools (SWSs))
 Centre of Advanced Faculty Training (CAFTs)
 Externally Aided Projects (like AHRD, NATP, NAIP, etc.)
11th Plan - ICAR sponsored 588 SWSs and CAFTs benefitting
about 11000 scientists and faculty of NARS

5. Capacity Building Program under NAIP
• NAIP (launched 2006) - Contributes to the sustainable
transformation of agricultural research system
• NAIP has 4 components; and a part of first component
focuses on human resource development
• Overall objective of CBP was to enhance technical
capacity of NARS:
 Predetermined 27 frontier areas of agricultural sciences in
advanced labs all across the world

6. Key objectives of the study
• Describe typology of CBP, trace input allocation, investments
and outputs of thematic and research skills developed
• Document costs, benefits, productivity and efficiency gains of
CBP
• Undertake a few case studies to assess potential of
technological innovation as a result of CBP
• Document evidence of collaborative research programs and
networks developed as a result of CBPs
• Document conditions for success of CBP and the way forward

7. Framework for Impact assessment
7
STEP 1: BENEFICIARIES OF THE PROGRAMS
Direct beneficiaries Indirect beneficiaries
STEP 2: OUTPUTS FROM THE
TRAINING PROGRAMS
STEP 3: OUTCOMES FROM
THE TRAINING PROGRAMS

8. 8
Survey Group Sample Responses
Received
1. International Training
participants
337 178
2. Control Group (non-trained
scientists)
500 164
3. Heads of the
institutes/universities
90 12
4. National Training participants 600 30
Framework for Impact assessment contd..

9. Typology of Capacity Building Program
9

10. Highlights – Budget and Scope
10
91.33
crores
L&CB
487
Trainees
7.86
Lacs
per
Trainee
23
Countries
122
Institutions
6
Core
Themes
27
Sub-
Themes
38.26
crores
(42%)
International
Training
94%
12 weeks
Training
6%
2-3 Weeks
Training
Distribution of Training Duration
Basic Sciences
Processing Technology
Biosecurity
Climate Change
Informatics
Social Science and Policy

11. 11
122
Total
Institutes
75%
ICAR
Inst.
25%
SAUs
7%
Trainees From IARI
19%
Trainees
81%
Trainees
Top SAUs Participated
3% UAS, Raichur
3% TN Vet and AS University, Chennai
2% PAU, Ludhiana
2% CSK , Palampur
Participating Institutions

12. Spread of Trainees by Subject Matter Divisions
12
Social-Sc
Engg
NRM
Fish
Animal-Sc
Crop-Sc
Hort
6%
8%
10%
14%
19%
20%
23%
SMD Horticulture Biggest Gainer
followed by Crop Sciences

13. Trainees Profile: Designation (%) and Age / Experience (years)
13
Scientists /
Asst. Prof.
24
Sr. Scientists /
Assoc. Prof.
63
Principal
Scientists /
Prof.
13
Age - 41
Exp. - 13
Senior Scientists a Major Lot
Age - 36
Exp. - 8
Age - 46
Exp. - 19

14. Female,
19%
Male, 81%
Female,
19%
Male, 81%
Female,
22%
Male, 78%
14
Gender of Trainees
All Trainees
ICAR SAUs

15. USA + Canada
(70 + 3)
UK+ EU
(8+9)
AU+NZ (4)
SEA (4)
EU – UK, Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, Denmark
SEA – Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines
Others – Syria, Peru , Columbia, Mexico, Chile
Destination Mapping : Distribution of Trainees (%) : Countries & Institutions

16. 16
Basic Sciences
48
Processing
Technology
18
Biosecurity
10
Climate
Change 8
Informatics
8
Social Science
and Policy
8
Distribution of Trainees (%) by Core Theme Areas

17. 17
Marker Asst.
Selection 19
Carbon
Trading 7
Bioinformatics
5
Nutraceuticals
5
Allele Mining
5
Biomolecules
5IPR 5
Fermentation
Tech 4
Nanotech
4
Sensor Based
Apps 4
Other Sub-
Theme Areas
37
Distribution of Trainees (%) by Sub-Theme Areas

18. 18
Our Top Mentors /Facilitators

19. Impact Assessment
–Trainees’ Perception
19

20. Trainees’ Perception about training program
20
• Training objectives
met (92%)
• Training very
comprehensive
(82%)
• Training content
directly relevant to
area of work (82%)

21. Impact on skill development - research, communication
and linkage & network
Research/
Technical
• Inspired new
research ideas
(94%)
• Learnt, which is
immediately
applied to
current work
80%)
Presentation/
Writing
•Improved
presentation/
writing skills
(65%)
Linkage &
network
• Develop
linkages at
universities/
institutes
visited (33%)

22. Impact on attitudinal change
Motivational
Change
• More
motivated
to do their
job (83%)
Confidence
Building
• More
confident in
their
position
(86%)
Expectations at
work place
• Increased
expectations
from
trainee, at
work (85%).

23. Impact on Trainees’ level-productivity, efficiency and
effectiveness
23
Efficiency
• More
efficient at
work (86%)
Productivity
• Increase in
productivity
(86%)
Effectiveness
• Increase in
effectiveness
of trainees in
their current
organisation
(86%)

24. 24
Impact Assessment
– Trainees’ level

25. Indicators of benefits/outcomes of CBPs in terms of output index
in pre and post training period
Note:-Technologies developed are defined application of techniques for improving productivity through
developing new varieties/breed. Possible technologies are:- prototype, genetic/stock, variety/breed, product,
vaccine, diagnostic kit, process, methodology/technique.
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
162
136 135 133
117
113
109 107 107
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Project
Proposals
submitted to
non-ICAR
Journal
articles
accepted for
publication
Patents
submitted
Project
Proposals
submitted
Journal
articles
accepted for
publication as
a first author
Project
Proposals
submitted to
ICAR
Technologies
developed as
a CO-PI
Technologies
developed as
a PI
Technologies
developed as
a PI & CO-PI
Index pre training Index post training

26. Outputs Post-training incremental
gains in output(%)
Journal articles • Bio-security/conservation (50%)
• Informatics (77%)
• Processing technology (45%)
• Basic Sciences (34%)
Technologies developed • Bio -security/conservation (6%)
• Processing technology (15%)
• Basic Sciences (4%)
Patent submitted • Processing technology (5%)
• Basic sciences(12%)
Project proposals submitted • Basic Sciences (13%)
• Informatics (33%)
Message: Biosecurity/conservation, Basic sciences, Processing
Technology & Informatics have gained more
Theme-wise benefits: publications, project proposals, technological innovations
& patents submitted……….cont….

27. Outputs Post –training incremental
gains in output (%)
Journal articles • USA (32%)
• Others (48%)
Technologies
developed
• Others (7%)
• USA (9%)
Patent submitted • Netherlands (100%)
• USA (75%)
Project proposals
submitted
• Netherlands (50%)
• USA (23%)
Message: Training-location – Trainees trained at USA
have gained more with respect to outputs
Training Location –wise analysis of benefits: publications, project
proposals, technological innovations & patents submitted……….contd.

28. Outputs Post-training incremental
gains in output(%)
Journal articles • Horticulture (68%)
• Fisheries (12%)
• NRM (33%)
Technologies developed
• Crop Sciences (24%)
• Horticulture (33%)
• NRM (32%)
• Fisheries (24%)
• Animal Sciences (5%)
Patent Submitted • Agricultural Engineering (30%)
Project Proposals submitted
• Crop Sciences(68%)
• Horticulture (2%)
Message: Horticulture, Crop Sciences and NRM
Management have more gains with respect to outputs
Division analysis of benefits: publications, organizing events, project
proposals, technological innovations & patents submitted……….contd.

29. Outputs Post –training incremental
gains in output(%)
Journal articles • Scientist/Assistant professor (51%)
• Senior scientist/Associate professor (26%)
Technologies
developed
• Scientist/Assistant professor (32%)
• Senior scientist/Associate professor (56%)
Patent submitted • Senior Scientist/Assistant professor (80%)
• Principal scientist/professor (22%)
Project Proposals
submitted
• Senior scientist/Associate professor (10%)
• Principal scientist/professor (23%)
• Senior scientist/Associate Professor have gained more with respect to journal articles accepted for
publication, followed by technologies developed, patent and project proposal submitted.
• Principal scientist/Professor have gained more with respect to patent and project proposals
submitted.
Designation –wise analysis of benefits: publications, project
proposals, technological innovations & patents submitted……….contd.

30. Outputs Post –training
incremental
gains in output(%)
Journal articles • 12 weeks (41%)
Technologies
developed
• <12 weeks (15%)
Patent submitted • 12 weeks(42%)
Project proposals
submitted
• 12 weeks(24%)
Message: Duration- Trainees underwent training for 12
weeks (3 months) had more gains with respect to outputs.
Duration –wise analysis of benefits: publications, project proposals,
technological innovations & patents submitted……….contd.

31. Outputs Post- training
incremental
gains in output(%)
Journal articles • 35-40years (43%)
Technologies developed • <35 years(52%)
• 35-40 years(31%)
Patent submitted • 40-45 years(91%)
Project Proposals submitted • 40-45years(46%)
Message:
• Trainees with age of < 35 years and 35-40 years had gained with respect to
journal articles accepted for publication and technologies developed.
• Those of >40 years had gained more with respect to patents and project
proposals submitted.
Age-wise analysis of benefits: publications, project proposals, technological
innovations & patents submitted……….contd.

32. System Wide/Institutional Impact
32

33. 33
Impact of training at institution –
level – impact more in SAU
• Immediate application of training skills in
current work area
• High impact on presentation/writing skills
• High impact on networking / linkage
skills to enhance research

34. 34
Impact of training at institution –
level -impact more in ICAR
• More number of trainees submitting
journal articles for publication
• Application of techniques learnt at training
in developing new project proposals
• More joint publications with supervisors

35. 35
Connections leading to Collaborations
Message:
• Developed connections
resulting in a collaborative
projects (55%)
Message
• Trainees initiated
communication resulting in a
collaborative project (47%)
• Organisations initiated
communication resulting in a
collaborative project (8%)

36. Professional recognition - Awards and promotions received post-training
Message:-
• Awards received
(27%)
• Institutional award
(17%)
• National award(7%)
• State-level award
(3%)
Message:-
• Promotions (35%)

37. Journal impact factor rating pre and post training (NAAS Rating)
Message:
Post training, the average capacity the scientists of publishing in high rated journals had increased. The figure indicates that
scientists had published papers in journal articles with rating 1-4.9 but post-training, they had been able to published more in
journal articles with rating 5-10.9.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
11-11.9 12-12.9 14-14.9
Number of
papers published
pre-training
Number of paper
published post-
training
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1-1.9 2-2.9 3-3.9 4-4.9 5-5.9 6-6.9 7-7.9 8-8.9 9-9.9 10-10.9 11-11.9 12-12.9 13-13.9 14-14.9
Percentage of papers published by the scientists in the respective journal impact factor category before training
Percentage of papers published by the scientists in the respective journal impact factor category after training

38. Benefit and Cost – Some Case Studies
38

39. Framework
7
Frontier
Science
Areas
11
Scientists
Marker Assisted
Selection
Fermentation
Tech
Nanotechnology
Genome RC
Carbon Trading
Nutraceuticals
Allele Mining
Science
Conventional Technology
(Control)
New Technique Learnt
(Treatment)
Multiple Gains from New
Technology
Time
Convenience
Precision
Efficiency
Probability
Economy
Productivity
Profitability
Profitability

40. 40
Theme
(number of scientist)
Conventional
Technology
New technology / Tool
Learnt
Product Application Average
B-C Ratio
Marker Assisted
Selection (123)
Phenotypic
Selection
Marker Assisted
Selection
HY Cattle Cattle
Improvement
11.35
PB - 1121 MAS (Disease
Resistant)
Disease
Resistant PB
Rice
Improvement
9.32
PB - 1121 MAS (Salt Tolerance) Salt Tolerant PB Rice
Improvement
9.31
Nanotechnology
(19)
Biochar Nano-patterning Nano-biochar Fertilizer
Economy
1.95
Photo
degradable
polymer
Bio-based polymer Biobased
polymeric films
Packaging 1.13
Conventional
nano-fibre
Nano-fibre (electro-
spinning technique)
Cellulose
nanofibre
Water/air filters 1.25
Fermentation
technology (15)
Conventional
Nisin
production
Improved Nisin
production
Nisin (biological
preservative)
Bio-
preservative
1.40
Bio-ethanol Improved Bio-ethanol Cellulosic
ethanol
Bio-ethanol 1.15
Benefit- Cost Ratio – Case Studies (1)
Figures in brackets indicate number of trainees.
Note: Details worked out after discussion with the concerned/selected trained scientist/s. B-C ratios estimated with
needed assumptions, being further checked and subjected to sensitivity analysis

41. 41
Theme
(number of scientist)
Conventional
Technology
New technology /
Tool Learnt
Product Application Average
B-C Ratio
Carbon Trading /
Sequestration
(19)
IPCC Tire – I IPCC Tire – II and III Carbon Credits Carbon Trading 1.85
IPCC Tire – I IPCC Tire – II (GC –
for estimation of
GHGs)
GHG reduction
factors
GHGs
accounting /
inventory
2.52
Genome Resource
Conservation (13)
Genetic analysis
(w.o
automation)
Automation in
Genetic Analysis
(automation)
All economic
traits
Crop/ Animal
Improvement
3.88
Genome Resource
Conservation (Hort.)
Conventional
Breeding
DNA Marker Analysis Hybrid Crop
Improvement
1.009
Nutraceutical
(Fisheries)
(20)
Chemo-therapy
/ anti-biotics
Nutraceutical Nutraceuticals
Fish
Shrimp / Fish
Feed
1.17
Allele Mining
(14)
SSH cDNA library Microarray Identification of
special Genes
Shrimp / Fish
Feed
25 times
cost
efficient
Benefit- Cost Ratio - Case Studies (2)
Figures in brackets indicate number of trainees.
Note: Details worked out after discussion with the concerned/selected trained scientist/s. B-C ratios estimated with
needed assumptions, being further checked and subjected to sensitivity analysis

42. Thank you all
Dr. A. R. Rao, IASRI
Dr. Mukesh Kumar Rana, NBPGR
Dr. Manish Srivastava, IARI
Dr. (Ms.) Anju Arora, IARI
Dr. (Ms.) Sunita Singh, IARI
Dr. (Ms.) Sangeetha Lenka, IISS
Dr. M. S. Sekar, CIBA
Dr. Ambasankar, CIBA
Dr. Sachin Dey, NDRI
Dr. Sandip Gangil, CIAE
Dr. Vigneswaran, N., CIRCOT
Dr. A.K. Singh, IARI
Dr. Vij, NBAGR 42

43. National Trainings-Impact Assessment
43

44. 44
National Training – Benefit Streams
18% change in journal articles accepted for publication and accepted as
a first author
30% change in journal articles accepted for publication in subject area
trained
Outputs
Average output
pre-training
Average output post-
training
% change in
output
Journal articles accepted for publication 0.6 1.65 18
Journal articles accepted for publication as a
first author 0.25 0.7 18
Journal articles accepted for publication in
subject area trained 0.05 0.2 30
Annual reports/conference proceedings
published as a first editor 0.3 0.35 2

45. 45
Research/ Technical
Skills
• Training objectives
were met (100%)
• Training inspired
new research ideas
(85%)
• Training was
complete and
comprehensive(74%)
• More efficient at
work (75%)
Presentation/
Writing Skills
• Improved
presentation/wri
ting skills (65%)
Linkage &
network skills
• Develop
connections
& linkages
(55%)
Analysis of Skills - research, communication and linkage & network

46. Leadership Management Program – Reflections

47. Leadership Management Program – Outputs and Outcomes
Skills developed/improved
• Decision making skills
• Management skills
• Communication skills
• Useful in problem
solving
• Better understanding
of leadership process
• Developing a leadership
plan for long-term
perspective with
effective utilization of
institute resourcesFollow-up Actions
• Skills to be used for better research management process
• Training modules developed for grassroots level workers and
stakeholders
• Efficiency improved in managing programs
• Collaborations developed
OUTPUTS
OUTCOMES

48. Response from Directors and
Mentor/Facilitators
48

49. Response - Directors/Heads of the ICAR institutes & VCs of SAUs.
Research/Technical skills
improved
• Analytical skills
improved
• Improvement in
formulating better
project proposals
• Technical capacity
improved (through new
techniques learned)
Soft skills development
• Peer interaction
improved
• Motivation improved
• Communication skills
improved
• Confidence to conduct
quality research
• Special skills to do
demand driven
research
Linkages developed
• International
contacts developed
• Interactions with
global knowledge
resource
OUTCOMES
IMPACT
New Projects Initiated
Publishing reports
Help in current projects
Long-run projects planned to maintain
relations with global institutions
International Trainings

50. 50
Director’s Evaluation of Impact of National Training
Broadened
knowledge base and
forged linkages
outside NARS system
Many externally
projects are being
obtained
Establishing
linkage with
private sector
facilitated

51. Some examples of inter institutional
collaborations during CBP
51

52. Example 1

53. Example 2
• IARI
• CSRI
• ICAR
• NRC on Seed Spices
• CIAH
• CSKHPKV
• IIHR
MICHIGAN
STATE
UNIVERSITY
ICAR
INSTITUTES

54. Conditions for Success and Way forward
(based on our study findings and suggestions
from mentors/facilitators)
54

55. Selection criteria:
• Age- designation-education profile of trainee
 “Young age- middle level- doctoral degree” combination more
potential for technology development
 “Senior” level more suited for developing project proposals;
patents
• Gender balance
• Balancing ICAR and SAU scientists

56. • Pre training exposure to research
• Pre training publication
• Preference to proposals with innovative research ideas
• Preference to proposals that have better potential for
long-run collaborative research
Selection criteria, contd. ….

57. Selection criteria, contd. ….
• Preference to applicants who have identified a
faculty with similar research interests abroad
and initiated some contacts
• Preference to applicants who have their own
data/ samples to work on to ensure
accountability and ownership on output
57

58. Training design:
• Prioritize areas and themes for training
• Dovetail training duration to training purpose
 Skill development – shortest duration
 Updating expertise – medium duration (max. 12 weeks)
 Frontier research – longest duration (min. 6 months)
• Orientation of trainees to acclimatize to foreign country
conditions

59. Training design, contd. …..:
• Focus on quality and depth of training content
• More publications and project proposals during training
• Rewards for on-training publications
• Research project designed for long term collaborations
between trainee and mentor (both at individual and
institutional levels)
• Involvement with superiors in designing the training

60. Follow-ups/ monitoring:
• Post training follow-ups/ monitoring
 Follow up on accomplishments using base line data
 Faculty mentor travel back to monitor and assess progress
 Mandatory output in terms of joint publications/continued
research collaborations
 Annual event for fostering networking among trainees on return to
share experiences , assist is research and teaching
 Post training multidisciplinary workshops.

61.  Trained resource can be used for international / national
training in specific areas.
 Creating central facility – investment intensive equipment –
Nanotech, MAS – to promote use of modern science
 Attach trained resource to the industry for scaling up –
provide venture capital
 Invest in periodic up-gradation of the skills of the trainees
61
Follow-ups/ monitoring , contd. ….

62. Implementation :
• Flexible rules, regulations and policies
• Adequate physical space and facilities, infrastructure
including ICT
• Supportive leadership
• Encouragement from seniors and leaders
• Financial resources
 Collaborative multidisciplinary research grants for long-run
collaborative research
 Seed grants for short run collaborative research.
 Financial supports to trainees during training like, bench fee, travel
funds etc.
62

63. Inventory :
• Generate discipline wise inventory
 Resource persons (experts/mentors/facilitators/ trained
scientists)
 Training manuals
 Suggestions and recommendations for future lines of work
• Inventory should be in the public domain – upload on ICAR
website
63

64. Thank you
64