Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
common vision of the BDC and how it could be addressed, projects were
designed to perform complementary functions and foster interdependence.
Learning was intended to be across projects in a basin, as well as across basins.
Many projects focused on their own activities and compliance milestones,
however. They gave little attention to opportunities available through mutual
support, sharing and learning. In some cases, they thought that cross-project
collaboration was unworkable and mechanistic, with apprehension replacing
complementarity and common vision.
Cross-project collaboration was constrained by concerns about possible
problems of timing and synchrony. Researchers feared that progress of their
project might be hindered if it relied on inputs from other projects. There were
examples of projects ignoring relevant outputs already produced by sister
projects. Connections among projects were idiosyncratic and often only
emerged when a project recognized the need for information. Throughout
Phase 2, there was less collaboration and information sharing across projects
in basins where projects were selected through competitive bidding.
When contracting the second round of basin projects (Volta, Limpopo and
Ganges) a few months later, the CPWF opted to commission the majority of
projects. It argued that commissioning projects ensured competent organiza-
tions and people were involved, and built on the social capital of the CPWF's
Phase 1 “community of practice.” It was also necessary given time and
budgetary constraints. The CPWF evaluated potential institutions against
criteria that included the institution's record in leading similar initiatives and its
governance and financial management (CPWF, 2010, p. 21). It was a new
approach to “leveling the playing field” amongst stakeholders, recognizing
relationships between partners as important in creating holistic basin programs.
In the Volta, Limpopo and Ganges basins, the CPWF attempted to avoid
the disconnect among projects that had resulted from the process of selection
in the first round of BDC contracts. It used writeshops for proposal develop-
ment to create cohesive BDC research programs in the Volta, Limpopo and
Ganges. During the writeshops projects were expected to agree on a common
vision, select common research sites and confirm expectations for collabor-
ation. It was only then that project proposals were sent for external review.
Even then, cross-project collaboration continued to be a challenge. In some
cases different site-selection criteria meant projects were unable to agree on
common sites.
The Ganges was the last BDC commissioned. An external team of experts
helped develop terms of reference for institutions identified as candidates for
commissioning (Ruvicyn et al., 2011). The benefits of including cross-project
complementarities into the Ganges BDC design were evident early on.
Successful BDC programs had projects that shared a common vision and
coordinated as they worked toward it.
CPWF management recognized that an integrated research, innovation and
impact strategy needed effective knowledge management. Knowledge man-
agement has to manage research outputs to influence stakeholder attitudes, skills
Search WWH ::
Custom Search