CGIAR research program on grain legumes

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background and context The Grain Legumes CRP was established to bring all research and development work on grain legumes within the CGIAR system under one umbrella. It was set up to provide public goods outcomes to serve the needs of the sustainable production and consumption of grain legumes in the developing world, capitalising upon their properties that enhance the natural resource base upon which production so unequivocally depends. The choice of species and research foci were finalised following extensive consultation with all stakeholders (though perhaps fewer end users), and cover all disciplines that contribute to long-lasting solutions to the issues of developing country production and consumption. ICRISAT leads Grain Legumes and is partnered by the CGIAR centers ICARDA, IITA and CIAT and a number of other important partners, both public and private, and of course farmers in the developed and developing world. Originally in mid-2012 Grain Legumes was structured around eight Product Lines (PL) (i.e. technological innovations) intersecting five Strategic Components (SC) (i.e. arranged as components along the value chain). However, in 2015, it was restructured along a more R4D output model leading to Intermediate Development Outcomes (IDOs). Thus five Flagship Projects (FP) more closely reflecting a systematic pipeline of progression from fundamental science, implementation of interventions and the development of capacity and partnerships to promote and adopt impactful outcomes: FP1) Managing Productivity through crop interactions with biotic and abiotic constraints; FP2) Determination of traits that address production constraints and opportunities; FP3) Trait Deployment of those traits through breeding; FP4) Seed Systems, post-harvest processing and nutrition; FP5) Capacity-Building and Partnerships. Another three cross-cutting FPs analyse the broader environment surrounding the adoption of outputs, the capitalising of investments in genomics research, and a focus on the Management and Governance of Grain Legumes: FP6) Knowledge, impacts, priorities and gender organisation; FP7) Tools and platforms for high throughput genotyping and bioinformatics; and FP8) Management and Governance. Five FPs focus on R4D; FPs 5 and 6 are considered cross-cutting; FP 7 has a technical focus and FP 8 has an overarching objective. Over the three year period since its inception in July 1012, Grain Legumes has had a total budget of $140 million, with $62M originally to come from W1/W2 and the remaining $78M to come from W3/bilateral. In actuality only $45M came from W1/W2 but $106M from W3/bilateral corresponding to 106% of expectation. Purpose, scope and objectives of the external evaluation Principally, the evaluation of Grain Legumes is to ensure that the program is progressing in an effective manner towards addressing the system-level outcomes of the CGIAR as they relate to grain legumes. In essence, the evaluation aims to provide essential evaluative information for decision-making by Program Management and its funders on issues such as extension, expansion and structuring of the program and adjustments in relevant parts of the program. Subsequent to the formal signing of the agreed terms of reference, the evaluation team was also invited to comment upon the mooted options for merging and/or disaggregating of Grain Legumes. The audiences are therefore manifold, from the CGIAR Fund Council and Consortium, the Boards of Trustees of the four component CGIAR centres, the Grain Legumes Steering, Management and Independent Advisory Committees, to the researchers and others involved in the delivery of R4D outcomes and their partner organisations. The evaluation was not only summative in measuring results from Grain Legumes at arm’s length; it was also formative in promoting learning and improvements, and developmental in nurturing adaption to transformational change with time. The evaluation report was written in a manner that allows for engagement of key partners and funders in a dialogue as to how to increase ownership and a common understanding of how the goals are to be achieved. We reviewed research undertaken before the CRPs but leading to impacts during Grain Legumes, and research commenced over the past 2.5 years. For related activities pre- and post-commencement of Grain Legumes, we reviewed the relevance of activities and their relation to CGIAR and the Grain Legumes goals, whether they were likely to lead to the outcomes and impacts as documented in the Grain Legumes proposal, and the quality of the science underpinning the likelihood to deliver outcomes. Throughout, we were cognisant of the extent of the reach of CGIAR centres’ activities, and those of stakeholders upon which the impact of CGIAR R4D depends. Within our remit we evaluated the original and modified management and governance structures, and all the processes/responsibilities managed within those structures. Besides the evaluation of the technical and managerial issues of Grain Legumes, we addressed cross-cutting issues of gender sensitivity, capacity building and the creation and nurturing of partnerships. The evaluation also has the objective to provide information relating to the development of full proposals for the new CRP funding cycle. The evaluation addressed six overarching questions developed from the TOR questions (listed in the Inception Report, 2015 [http://1drv.ms/1POQSZh] and others including cross-cutting issues, phrasing them within the context of traditional evaluation criteria: 1. Relevance: Global development, urbanisation and technological innovation are progressing rapidly, are the aims and focus of Grain Legumes coherent, robust, fit for purpose and relevant to the global community? 2. Efficiency: Is the structure and effectiveness of leadership across Grain Legumes developing efficient partnership management and project management across PLs? 3. Quality of science: Is Grain Legumes utilising a wide range of technologies in a way that will increase our fundamental understanding of the biology that underpins several PLs; and are collected data used in the most effective way? 4. Effectiveness: Are Product Lines strategic contributors to the overarching aims and vision for Grain Legumes? 5. Impact: Are the impact pathways that underlie each PL well defined, measureable and achievable; and are they sufficiently defined in terms of beneficiaries? Does progress towards achieving outputs and outcomes from the major research areas indicate a lasting benefit for CGIAR and the communities it serves? 6. Sustainability: Is Grain Legumes managing the increasing level of restricted funding in terms of program quality and effectiveness, including attracting and retaining quality staff? Questions for the evaluation of governance and management focused on accountability, transparency, the effectiveness and success of program execution, change management processes and communication methods, taking account of the effects of CGIAR reform. The three crosscutting issues were considered as follows: i) gender balance in program delivery, e.g. whether each PL is able to contribute to the increased income, food security, nutrition, environmental and resource conservation for resource-poor women and men existing in rural livelihoods; ii) are internal and external capacity gaps identified/met, is capacity effectively developed within each product line, and are staff at all levels engaged in contributing ideas towards capacity building; and iii) is there effective involvement of partners in research and activity programming, what are the criteria for developing partnerships, how they are formalised and how is communication between partners and within Grain Legumes managed? It was not in remit to search for output, outcomes or impact, however as highlighted later, much of our time was spent on searching for information to support claims of impact, since Grain Legumes had no effective dedicated M&E in place at the time of undertaking the review. Approach and methodology The evaluation was conducted when Grain Legumes had been operational for approximately 3 years. The approach and methodology followed that outlined in the Inception Report [http://1drv.ms/1POQSZh]. The CCEE Team based its findings, conclusions and recommendations on data collection from several sources:  review of program documents, communications with the CO, minutes and presentations from all management and governance committee meetings  review of previous assessments and evaluations  sampling of Grain Legume projects in 7 countries1  more than 66 face to face interviews, a further 133 persons in groups and 4 phone/Skype conversations: ICRISAT, ICARDA, CIAT and IITA staff, partners and stakeholders. Meetings with one Independent Science and Partnership Council (ISPC) member.  meetings with over 100 people in 16 external groups, such as farmers’ groups  online survey completed by 126 (33.4%) scientists who contribute to Grain Legumes and a number of non-CGIAR partners and Management representatives  bibliometric review of 10 publications within each PL to qualitatively assess the design, conduct, analysis and presentation of results  quantitative and qualitative self-assessment of the contributions of each of the PLs to the six criteria and 3 cross-cutting issues of evaluation mentioned above completed by PLCs (see below). We reviewed the Logical Framework that underpins the desired Goals, or Impacts of Grain Legumes, and the links between the outputs and inputs as they related to the organisational units of Grain Legumes. The logical framework approach to planning and management of Grain Legumes activities implies a linear process, leading from activities, outputs, outcomes, to impacts, but within such an approach there may be room for a more systems dynamics approach allowing for feedback at every step and within every step, in order to refine and improve upon the respective activities as new results, ideas, and directions come to light. We then developed a matrix that summarised quantitatively and qualitatively the contributions of each of the PLs to the six criteria and 3 cross-cutting issues of evaluation mentioned above. Main findings and conclusions Grain legume production and consumption remain of great importance to the food security of not inconsiderable populations in the developing world, and merit sustained research investment. We conclude that Grain Legumes continues to contribute significant returns to research investments by the CGIAR, and such investment should continue. The global research community looks to the CGIAR for leadership in Grain legumes, but needs to be assured of value adding when bringing CGIAR centres under the expected umbrella of synergy. However, there is considerable scope for improving the efficiency with which outcomes are achieved. We note that an absence of an effective M&E has hampered the assessment of the effectiveness of proposed impact pathways. Likewise progress has been hampered by the limited numbers of research partnerships with Advanced Institutes and by budgetary constraints (lamented for their stifling effects on continuation of ongoing exciting research). The unworkable management structure constrains the CRP Director’s leadership role; responsibility without authority will never lead to effective outcomes. Good fortune is responsible for many of the successes of Grain Legumes, underpinned by a devoted work force across the participating CGIAR centres and partners. The quality of the science is not uniformly high, and we believe that mentoring of scientists should be given priority where quality is poor. Simplified yet informative reporting is an imperative to this. World class science underpins the identification of, and molecular basis for, traits important for yield improvement and this expertise should be extended to all grain legume species, capitalising upon the germplasm collections. The linking of Grain Legumes with regional research and development consortia has been very successful, with outcomes aligning with those of Grain Legumes. We see that with declining funding consolidation of research effort based on likely successes will be necessary, and welcome the move afoot to incorporate grain legumes into an agri-food system focused on successful value chains that deliver sustainable outcomes. Relevance and Strategy Grain Legumes has geographic and disciplinary relevance, addressing the major supply chain issues of variety development seed system and agronomy, with some attention to quality and postharvest marketing systems. The CRP has provided the opportunity to cut ongoing and to initiate new research. Research funded by the Gates Foundation (Anon, 2014) suggests that the need for improvement is greatest in Africa and advocates reducing the number of crop by country combinations when resources are sparse. The lesser research investment in Latin America, however, is not in line with the regions’ dependency on legumes. In spite of the fact that there is no evidence of strong inter-partner CGIAR centre or internal synergy, the program is still moving ahead on most fronts in line with the overall project logframe. This is in spite of continual pushing and pulling by in particular donors and the CO. However, to quantify real impact, we believe Grain Legumes must have access to reliable baseline data on production and consumption, and this is missing. Similarly, there is little evidence of the proposed ‘Inclusive Market Oriented Development’ (IMOD) framework being used to assist with priority setting. The product lines, eight of which cover most of the historical programmes in place in the partner CGIAR centres at the commencement of the Grain Legumes, do not cover all the constraints for formal constraints analysis was not undertaken at the inception of the Grain Legumes, and some of this additionally identified research is undertaken under the umbrella of the FPs; this needs to be rationalised. We found the PLs to be isolated in activity, even with minimally-integrated activities within each PL, with little evidence of synergy between PLs. Even though the SCs should ensure a systems approach, as with the new FPs, we did not get a feel that this is so. The underplaying of agronomy, and production practices may be one reason for this. We believe that treating legume crops as if they were horticultural crops will increase farmer returns from investment. The choice of Flagship Projects makes sense, with the flow of activity firstly around crop management and agronomy followed by the logical sequence of trait discovery, incorporation into improved varieties, dissemination of those varieties through appropriate seed chains leading to market impacts, and the capacity building required at all steps. One obvious omission, however, is the lack of a central and strategic policy on the role of transgenics in Grain Legumes. We found four notable comparative advantages for Grain Legumes: the access to germplasm of component species, the use of the phenotyping facility at ICRISAT, the approach for village level industry for IPM, and the emphasis on hybrid pigeonpea. Efficiency Each centre has strong control of, and emphasis on, their ‘species’ domains, and ownership of the same detracts from possible synergy. Without synergy or value add, the Grain Legumes brings with it no comparative advantage over each centre continuing their own pre-CRP research agendas. We found little evidence of integration of programmes between centres and almost no cross-centre authorship of publications, such as could have occurred with the integrated cross-centre approaches to stress tolerance including crop modelling: the one publication (Gaur et al., 2015) on heat tolerance by ICRISAT, CIAT and ICARDA does not provide any keys to inter-centre collaboration. The integration of each centre with NARS and university research programmes is good, but the cross-centre links with NARS are poor. A better coordinated integration with Grain Legumes, , rather than through the individual centres, may reduce transactions costs for NARS, Monitoring and evaluation is, as noted throughout our report, one area of Grain Legumes research management that has not been given the attention it should have received. If it had have received proper attention, some of the issues of poor efficiency might have been nipped in the bud. A strong monitoring and evaluation system would have provided the baseline data and set the milestones that would have allowed both efficiency and effectiveness to be better appraised. We found no attempt to define comparative advantages of the CGIAR centres and their R4D activities, although practice showed the better grasp of CIAT in developing innovative seed distribution systems. During field visits and interviews, the CCEE Team observed shortcomings in the communication processes within Grain Legumes and with the broader scientific community and the public. For example, the public face of the program on the internet is out of date. Survey findings, however, suggest that information is shared freely and routinely within the PL within which scientists work. Some external issues, such as those with funding, low W1/W2 and poor sustainability of funding (especially if funding is top heavy with a few agencies), undermine research investment and confidence of partners in the system (e.g. as voiced by researchers working on crops and countries not included in TL III and the cessation of ongoing competitively-funded projects especially in India), but other issues attributable to the governance and management of the Grain Legumes, such as opaque integration of W3/bilaterals with W1/W2 funding require attention. Offsetting this, the existence of the Grain Legumes did mobilise additional funding [that it would not have if Grain Legumes did not exist]. We were concerned that Grain Legumes is simply not recognised outside of the CRP, with a limited www presence and centres promote themselves, rather than Grain Legumes (with exception in IITA). This is not a good move if one wishes to increase investment in the Grain Legumes. Although funding agencies require cost:benefit ratios, for example for each PL we faced difficulty in determining comparative value for money between investment in different types of research, and in being able to clearly attribute research and development outcomes to financial investment. There was also a time CCEE frame issue too. There is poor interaction with the private sector, notably in areas where they have a comparative financial advantage. We questioned in particular the apparent lack of interaction with the major agro-chemical companies, with respect to the development of herbicide tolerant (HT) grain legumes and the lack of evidence that the regulatory and trade aspects related to herbicide tolerant crops had been considered. Quality of science The quality of the science is highly variable across Grain Legumes, with pockets of real excellence that are linked to good levels of productivity, whereas other PLs are struggling to deliver quality publications, and outputs and outcomes that are based on these. There is much evidence of gradualism in terms of research output and outcomes, i.e. essentially the same activities that were ongoing at the time of the launch of Grain Legumes are still in place. However, there are examples of game changers including those from valuable investments in genomics, phenotyping, and bio-control. We were pleased to see large proportions of collaboration on publications with non-CGIAR centres, reflecting cooperation with partners in developed and developing countries. The value of collaboration when ensuring quality of science cannot be stressed highly enough both within the CRP, and with other global and national partners. PLs should be given incentives to collaborate with other CRPs and external institutions. There is little cohesion between PLs and with other CRPs as evidenced by publications, although there are some exceptions. We suspect the reasons for this are driven by funding. Productivity from the different PLs is also highly variable and it is not clear what other activities staff are engaged in since, in some PLs, they do not appear to lead to quality publications. Effectiveness Grain Legumes has been very effective in addressing component issues of research, but not the continuum from variety development to legumes on someone’s dinner plate. Our overall assessment of the effectiveness of Grain Legumes in stimulating synergy, innovation and impact indicate that gradualism is more prevalent than innovation. It also shows, as do publications, that there is little integration of disciplines or a focus on ‘systems’. The absence of socio-economists from research teams is evident in the general lack of an end user focus. However, research on genomics, plant breeding and seed systems have made great strides forward, on the brink of delivering impact. Agronomy has been a poor sister, but some of the competitive grants within Grain Legumes have unearthed some potential game changers, such as objective use of transplanting as an agronomic practice. As mentioned earlier, the lack of effective M&E (however, this was part of some major projects such as TL II/TL III), and therefore the ability to monitor impact pathways and achievement of impact, implies no systematic management of data. This creates difficulty when attempting to evaluate the achievement of the Grain Legumes objectives. One might have expected at least one attempt to try to develop publications between centres arguing for similar biologies/research approaches, bringing species together under one umbrella, but we did not find any evidence for this. It is most unfortunate that, due to budgetary cuts, the new ‘schemes’, e.g. competitive grants and scholarships, were cut off before gaining a foothold. With 8 species addressed by Grain Legumes, it is not unexpected that there will be little evidence of shared protocols across centres/species. One rare example was that hosted by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) on shared methods for phenotyping of legume germplasm. Researchers from CIAT, IITA, ICRISAT and three USDA stations attended, focusing in simple canopy temperature and root morphology measurements. It is our belief that as a set of research centres, the CGIAR centres should be focusing on the research for which they have a comparative advantage. While imposing the restructure to FPs, which is fine for development objectives and outcomes (funded through W3/bilateral), it is less so for a research institute, and the structure should not detract from the more basic work expected of an international CGIAR centre (or set of centres as in a CRP). Impact It is well known that research does not always lead to scientific breakthroughs. Also, activities such as plant breeding are long term; making impacts difficult to assess. We believe that sufficient progress with genomics and associated research has been made to warrant impact, but we are unable to quantify the levels of impact, or the timeframe for the same. Work in Grain Legumes has enormous potential for real impact in scientific research, commercial, farming, smallholder and household communities, much of which is being realised. However, the PLs need to become more adept at providing convincing cases that are strongly evidenced for these impacts, as this is likely to be a key factor in leveraging future funding. Claimed gains must be referenced against baseline data, and these are not always readily available. The CCEE Team realises that such impact evaluation represents a significant drain on resources, and Grain Legumes should determine whether the balance of costs to benefits favours such investment. Interviews conducted by the CCEE during site visits showed that PLs are quantifying the area of adoption of varieties, but in most cases they are not measuring the impact on environment, health/nutrition. Since the health and nutritional benefits and the environmental gains from growing legumes are major arguments for supporting grain legume research, the community is currently missing substantial opportunities to strengthen its own case for continued support. Whilst there are some impressive examples of considering the whole value chain, e.g. white beans from production through to export; in the main, the pipeline to end user is somewhat piece-meal, with no clear definition of the end user nor differential responsibility of Grain Legumes and of partners. The lack of robust time-defined impact pathways is highlighted in Section 7.4, and even though developed for PL5, timeframes are essential for measuring progress against prediction. Sustainability In summary, there is general acknowledgement that future funding is likely to become more limited, specifically in W1&2 and there is understandable concern over the support for the staff and basic infrastructure that underpin the Grain Legumes programme. For example, it is reported that staffing in parts of CIAT has been dependent on W1&2 and that this is too unstable to re-establish a critical mass. The present system whereby W3 and bilateral projects do not pay a realistic level of overheads means that such projects are being effectively subsidised by W1&2. This position is not sustainable in the long term as there will be a progressive but definite loss of basic skills and resources in the core centres. The only obvious options to prevent this outcome include a severe reduction in the fixed costs of the centres and/or a refusal to accept W3 and bilateral funding with an inadequate overhead component. In the latter case, there is an obvious danger that funders will move their resources away from the CGIAR system towards other, perhaps less expensive, suppliers of research, and possibly more relevant development expertise. This issue must be addressed. As the Grain Legumes moves into the future, and if sustainable funding cannot be assured, decisions must be made concerning a reduction in activities, keeping some caretaker breeding maintenance, and focus (as has TL III) on fewer species and a reduced geographic focus. Cross cutting issues: Gender, capacity building and partnerships Gender is not mainstreamed, but there is some evidence that this is improving, especially with dedicated gender specialists and the slow integration of gender across CRPs. There is a need to approach gender through the vision of agriculture as a social practice, with recognition of what changes will be acceptable culturally and what not, and capitalising upon the perceived and actual features of production and processing that grain legumes are primarily women-based crops. Gender awareness may be high among Scientists, but it appears to be a predominantly passive attribute with few proactively seeking opportunities for gender equity. It is, however, a sound sensitivity base on which to build. Nevertheless, examples of notable gender initiatives were identified during field visits. For example, in Benin, the development of biocontrol technologies has enthusiastically integrated diversity, engaging with women farmers’ and youths while maintaining cultural norms. Women are gathering and processing, youths are taking the product to market. The implication is that several groups benefit, rather than domination by the majority group. In Malawi, innovative approaches have been developed to improving nutrition for children, such as incorporating nutrient enriched bean flour products into snacks. In India, scientists collaborating with gender scientists and socio-economists are identifying the impact of mechanical harvesting on agricultural labour and the potential displacement of female labourers. In Kenya, a novel initiative is improving the accessibility of certified seed for new varieties. Seed suppliers have introduced small packs of grain legume seed at low unit cost, which are being purchased by young people and women. Capacity building efforts for external partners are not clearly aligned with the research mandate and delivery of Grain Legumes. However, there are a number of training activities that are being undertaken by Grain Legumes, largely through the W3/bilateral project. Gender balance never reaches parity, but it appears that efforts are made to include female participants. Within the evaluation timeframe it was not possible to conduct external surveys to further validate or review external capacity building efforts in Grain Legumes. Training of scientists is significant, with >40 benefiting. Postgraduate training is varied across PLs, and there is some opportunity to increase the numbers being supervised. We consider that support for postgraduates at ICRISAT could be better coordinated, satisfying more of the students’ needs. It is important, however, to follow up investments in capacity building by monitoring effectiveness, career progressions and so on. Training activities appear to be rather centre-specific, not following a coordinated programme managed by, nor at the level of, the Grain Legumes. Numbers of persons trained and their gender are important, but a measure of the effectiveness of the training is more important. Although optimism is expressed by the great majority of Research Managers that partnerships were working well to leverage knowledge and research capacities, scientists have a less favourable view, particularly in terms of their incentives to participate. It seems likely that the activities taking place within Grain Legumes were, in the most part, continuations of previous collaborations. This is not surprising in light of the reduction in the emphasis on partnerships as Grain Legumes evolved to a funded project, and the consequent lack of opportunity and ambition for establishing novel partnerships. Where they exist, partnerships are good on the whole, especially with US. They could be expanded where comparative advantages exist (for example with Canada and Australia for machine harvestable legumes), but some earlier identified partnerships, e.g. with Turkey, have not been capitalised upon. Others experience problems of variety access (the embargo on exports of some sources of materials from India), yet others do have relevance e.g. imported Brazilian varieties in pre-release in Ethiopia (even though two of the three are from CIAT materials). Governance and Management The standard format of committee structure and responsibilities is common to other CRPs, as are the attendant problems. One of the major problems is that the Grain Legumes Director has responsibility but no authority; hence, even with the support of the RMC, the Director is unable to ‘direct’ in the literal sense of the work the activities of Grain Legumes. We also see the same sense of helplessness with the role of the PLCs. They have responsibility but no authority in managing the affairs of their PL, and they have no access to funds with which to promote intellectual collaboration and cooperation. Minutes from governance and management meetings do not reflect the compromised weak position of the Director and the associated difficulties in the management of Grain Legumes. Nor do the minutes reflect concerns about the amount of time spent by scientists in meetings for planning, integration, evaluation and reporting. Many scientists reported significant opportunity costs in participating in the ongoing imposed [by the CO] evolution of Grain Legumes and CRPs in general. The changes brought in by the CO have not helped promote any greater authority and capacity of the Grain Legumes Director to direct. Likewise, they do not address any of the issues with the conflict of interest in having the Lead Centre chair the Steering Committee. Indeed, we believe that the combining of the Steering Committee with the Independent Advisory Committee, besides becoming unwieldy in number, annuls any sense of independence in advice offered to the Grain Legumes management. We have concerns with the declining proportion of W1/W2 funds (as expressed in the section on Sustainability), and believe that when basic financial planning takes place, integration of W1/W2 and W3/bilateral sources must occur, and be linked to anticipated outcomes and impacts. This will ensure a close alignment of collaborators’ and partners’ objectives and contributions to that of the Grain Legumes. We also queried the process for, and the formality, or lack of, surrounding, the approval of annual budgets, and the level of priority setting when budgets are cut. Recommendations for Grain Legumes The CCEE Team makes the following recommendations, critical issues are highlighted in bold, and those that require action by an entity other than the Grain Legumes Research Management Committee or Project Management united are identified in a footnote. Relevance and Strategy Recommendation 1: A period of consistency is necessary to raise confidence, morale and trust across scientists, managers and partners to foster the assembly of enduring Grain Legumes outcomes2.  There needs to be a concerted effort to undertake baseline studies and to implement a robust M&E activity during this period. Without these data the foundation for integrated research in grain legumes is jeopardised.  There is a strong need to link more closely with the private sector, especially where there are financial and other comparative advantages to do so. Recommendation 2: The agronomic and physiological trait targets of Grain Legumes (tolerance to changing climate patterns, to the pests and diseases of today and of the future, incorporation of quality traits and adaptations to intensive production systems [machine-harvestability and herbicide tolerance], and short season high yielding characters) are all worthy of continued investment when selecting for improved varieties.  There needs to be a common strategy, implemented across centres and species, as to how to address these trait targets through conventional and modern breeding approaches, but only if adequate funding is assured and secured and if a consistency and unity of purpose can be achieved across a large-scale. This should take the form of cross-species coordinated research programmes to address these breeding targets that cooperate across centres and make efficient use of facilities and other resources.  The CRP should undertake a detailed strategic review of the role of transgenics across the range of targets in the mandate crops. Efficiency Recommendation 3: The lack of an effective M&E process is a significant omission, not least in terms of more efficient use of resources and the lack of baseline data with which to measure impact, and must be rectified.  Reinforcing Recommendation 1, an effective M&E system initially directed towards baseline studies must be implemented.  Transaction costs may be reduced through bilateral projects, which are seen as more cost effective than W1/W2 where transaction costs are disproportionately higher. Recommendation 4: To improve communication and coordination within the CRP, and with a broader audience:  There is a priority need for a central database containing, names of staff associated with Grain Legumes and their time commitments, their responsibilities, and involvement in CRP activities, their progress and achievements, their publications, plans of training, travel, and other opportunities for interaction.  Regular global meetings of staff involved in managing PLs, the entire CRP management staff and the IAC are essential for effective coordination of all activity within Grain Legumes.  The website must be given a complete overhaul and improvement and then regular maintenance must be provided to keep it current. Quality of Science Recommendation 5: It is essential to continue investment in good science and to institute a change from gradualism in research output and outcomes to an expectation of innovative and concrete achievements that can be attributed clearly to people, centres and core facilities.  A cost:benefit analysis and subsequent strategic planning must be undertaken to justify further investment in the genomics and phenotyping facilities at ICRISAT especially as such technologies advance rapidly. Strategic planning and coordination must also be implemented for capitalising on the investment in crop simulation modelling. (The phenotyping facility of ICRISAT needs to focus on delivering some outcomes, not only outputs.)  PLs should be given incentives to collaborate with other CRPs and external institutions. The CCEE recommends special recognition of high quality collaborative papers, thereby encouraging increased quality of the research programmes and widening the penetration of research impacts.  More importance should be placed on the quality of publication, rather than quantity of outputs and there should be recognition of other types of outputs from Grain Legumes. The CRP Director must be party to this.  If staff are engaged in activities that relate more to impact than publication then this needs to be monitored and recorded and a clearer understanding developed of what constitutes a pathway to impact and how success of such activities can be evaluated. A system must be devised and incorporated into the M&E to enable recognition of other types of outputs (non- publication based) from Grain Legumes, e.g. varieties for breeders. Effectiveness Recommendation 6: To develop greater synergy, Grain Legumes should review management processes and the direction of research activities. In particular, far more extensive integration of research and knowledge exchange should take place across both African and Asian continents so that the best aspects of both can be shared. A multidisciplinary approach is recommended that considers processing solutions, as well as breeding solutions, to capitalise upon the nutritional benefits of the grain legume crops. We recommend:  A better collaboration with social scientists at the design stage of experiments in order to improve the utility of the work carried out and to understand its reach.  Supporting3 the adoption of best practice electronic data collection, central storage and open access, particularly of genomic data, for public use.  Given the focus on the link between phenotyping and genotyping, we note that there is a lack of congruence between the populations that are being phenotyped and those being genotyped, and therefore these could be better aligned within each species.  Concentrating investment external to Grain Legumes on scaling up production of varieties with the most promising trait profiles to meet the basic seed requirement.  Developing a more holistic approach that coordinates an understanding of the disease pathology and epidemiology, and of new chemicals before they become commercially available, together with agronomic practice such that recommendations can be made for growers. Continuing work to establish whether agronomic factors hold true in different environments and to assess GxE effects within breeding programmes. Such rigorous trial practices should be used to inform the evaluation of breeding lines and to provide phenotype data to associate with markers for traits such as heat, drought and herbicide tolerance.  Considering grain legumes as if they were vegetable crops in terms of the strategy for intensification of production, both from the management perspective and for seed systems, will be a useful development objective into the future. This will bring about more rapid intensification and is likely to increase farmer returns from investment. Recommendation 7: The CGIAR centres should focus in on the research for which they have a comparative advantage. While imposing the restructure to FPs, which is fine for development objectives and outcomes (funded through W3/bilateral) it is less so for a research institute, and should not detract from the more basic work expected of an international CGIAR centre (or set of centres in a CRP).  Collaborative approaches should be explored within Grain Legumes, e.g. similar biologies/research approaches, bringing species together under one umbrella. Similarly better alignment is needed to address the lack of congruence between the populations that are being phenotyped and those being genotyped.  Despite positive impacts from research in genomics, plant breeding and seed systems, the lack of an effective M&E, already mentioned elsewhere, has reduced the ability to monitor impact pathways. This must be addressed.  The absence of socio-economists from research teams is evident in the general lack of an end user focus. Responsibilities of the different actors in the whole value chain must be considered and identified when developing impact targets, and the pathway leading to them, for individual projects. People with socio-economist skills must be part of the team from project inception so that appropriate frameworks are incorporated for measuring and influencing sociological and economic changes brought about by Grain Legumes research. Impact Recommendation 8: PLs need to become more adept at providing convincing cases in which impact is strongly evidenced, as this is likely to be a key factor in leveraging future funding.  Claimed gains must be referenced against baseline data, and these are not always readily available. The CCEE Team realises that such impact evaluation represents a significant drain on resources, and Grain Legumes should determine whether the balance of costs to benefits favours such investment.  It is essential that Grain Legumes provides training to staff on what constitutes impact and how it can be recorded.  Specific, rather than generalised, potential impacts arising from activity within Grain Legumes should be defined at the time of justifying the programme of work and a pathway to impact should form part of the documentation prepared ahead of a piece of research commencing. . In other words, centres should submit work plans to Grain Legumes before they are undertaken using W1/W2 funds Recommendation 9: The reporting activity must be streamlined to a single (brief) format that can be used to report to Grain Legumes, Centres and to donors for special project activities4. Sustainability Recommendation 10: As Grain Legumes moves into the future, and if sustainable funding cannot be assured, decisions must be made concerning a reduction in activities, keeping some caretaker breeding maintenance, and focus (as has TL III) on fewer species and a reduced geographic focus. Zeigler (Director General of IRRI) states “…time and effort would be better spent … making tough decisions about which programs deserve the precious support.”  The present system whereby W3 and bilateral projects do not pay a realistic level of overheads means that such projects are being effectively subsidised by W1&2 and there will be a progressive but definite loss of basic skills and resources in the core centres. To prevent this outcome it is necessary to significantly reduce the fixed costs of the centres and/or refuse to accept W3 and bilateral funding without an adequate overhead component.  In the absence of long term certainty, the scale of the budget allocated to each of the new CRPs should be very conservative, a feature that can only be achieved by restricting/reducing the scope, probably quite significantly. Cross cutting issues: Gender, capacity building and partnerships Recommendation 11: The challenge for Grain Legumes is to achieve pro-active gender mainstreaming, which facilitates opportunities for gender diversity within all activities, from employment processes through research to end users.  Strategic measurable gender indicators need to be embedded in research design, for instance, through specific IDOs for each of the flagships projects. Accurate baseline data are also required to facilitate M&E reviews of progress.  Implementation of the Gender Strategy is the responsibility of everyone, not solely the Gender Team. Thus, ownership could be encouraged by setting personal development for key personnel objectives with specific outcomes, e.g. employment practices or research outcomes.  Recognising the positive gender initiatives in progress or planned, feedback must be communicated and integrated into broader research planning to share opportunities, methods and outcomes.  In addition to promoting gender equity in research, Grain Legumes also needs to ensure that working environments are gender sensitive and that recruitment processes, including promotion opportunities are equitable. Gender imbalance in management should be actively examined to identify further opportunities for developing female leadership. Recommendation 12: It is recommended that a training plan be devised to ensure that capacity building efforts are more clearly aligned with the research mandate, delivery and timeframe of Grain Legumes. Moreover, we recommend that ICRISAT develop a strategy to treat their new cohort of researchers more equitably in the future. Recommendation 13: To develop a more coherent strategic programme designed to eliminate overlap and promote synergy between programmes with common aims, Grain Legumes should hold a meeting with a range of partners. Governance Recommendation 14: Governance processes should be re-assessed and the structure altered to ensure that the Grain Legumes Director has the authority and budget control to drive the execution of strategy.  The ISC should be truly independent and given the power to influence strategic decisions before they become final. We also recommend that PLCs are provided with the authority to manage the direction and finances of their PL; and that ring-fenced funds are provided for the promotion of collaboration, coordination and staff training5. The way ahead In our view, having seen the ineffectiveness of much of the attempts [or lack of attempts] to harness synergies between multiple centres, and of the strength in few or sole centre partnerships, we believe that there is little to justify a full retention of the 8 legume species and 4 CGIAR centres in a CRP. TL I and II and PABRA have shown to be reasonably good cross-centre and single centre integrated programmes, but even they suffer from incomplete value chain approaches to increasing rural incomes while increasing food and nutritional security; they both need multi-faceted solutions which are not immediately forthcoming from Grain Legumes. It is important to embed Grain Legumes research within the agri-food systems these crops serve. Figure ES1 broadly shows the perceived current and potential degrees of synergy between centres, PLs and species, and is discussed more in the text. It is clear that the value chains for individual species from trait determination to nutritional impact have more cohesion than do the individual activities (e.g. trait deployment) across species. For this reason we believe that the future for research in Grain Legumes is best addressed by focusing on each of the species separately, and within an ecosystem framework; any synergy for research across species can be effected through communication and not necessarily through obligatory cooperative research. The ecosystem framework will allow for strengthening of agronomy type systems research, the arguments for benefits of inclusion of grain legumes in cropping systems, which is notable by its absence in much of what Grain Legumes currently undertakes. Figure ES1. Current and potential degrees of synergy between centres, PLs and crop species We therefore agree with the innovation in agri-food systems approach of the CG, and believe that Grain Legumes rightly belongs in the Dryland Cereals and Legumes Agri-food Systems. We believe that the option of combining the crops of dryland cereals and legumes in the cereal-legume-livestock systems of subsistence farming communities for whole-farm productivity is closest to the best way forward. Indeed the inclusion of grain legumes may not warrant even a CRP alone, rather the legume components should fit in with the major crops that determine the production systems. Legumes will always be subservient to the major cereals, as necessary adjuncts to the whole production system, providing both nutritional diversity and environmental services, neither achievable from cereals alone. Figure ES2. Most suitable option for integration of Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals into an Agri-Food Systems CRP Most suitable option for integration of Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals into an Agri-Food Systems CRP, which  Incorporates ex-Dryland Systems, Dryland Cereals, Grain Legumes, some HumidTropics, some ex-Livestock &Fisheries into a new CRP  Will cover full agri-food system VC for all 8 legumes in all ecologies, but must interact (dock) with the relevant AFS-CRPs for the dominant cereal in the relevant ecology  Hence, will need to negotiate with other Agrifood Systems-CRPs on who does what for legumes  In addition, responsible for sorghum and millet in the mixed dryland crop-livestock agro-ecologies For major game changers to be effected, we believe that the game has to change, and there is little evidence of this. The direction of CRPs is the correct route, but the journey has not yet come to its destination. A major change of game [such as the adoption of a Flagship Project approach as exemplified by the Australian CSIRO – where flagships contract services from centres of research excellence] would be painful to implant. The CGIAR system is going down the right pathway but it has not gone far enough.

Cross layer based protocols for energy aware and critical data delivery related applications using wireless sensor networks

Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) have been an exciting topic in recent years. The services offered by a WSN can be classified into three major categories: monitoring, alerting, and information on demand. WSNs have been used for a variety of applications related to the environment (agriculture, water and forest fire detection), the military, buildings, health (elderly people and home monitoring), disaster relief, and area or industrial monitoring. In most WSNs tasks like processing the sensed data, making decisions and generating emergency messages are carried out by a remote server, hence the need for efficient means of transferring data across the network. Because of the range of applications and types of WSN there is a need for different kinds of MAC and routing protocols in order to guarantee delivery of data from the source nodes to the server (or sink). In order to minimize energy consumption and increase performance in areas such as reliability of data delivery, extensive research has been conducted and documented in the literature on designing energy efficient protocols for each individual layer. The most common way to conserve energy in WSNs involves using the MAC layer to put the transceiver and the processor of the sensor node into a low power, sleep state when they are not being used. Hence the energy wasted due to collisions, overhearing and idle listening is reduced. As a result of this strategy for saving energy, the routing protocols need new solutions that take into account the sleep state of some nodes, and which also enable the lifetime of the entire network to be increased by distributing energy usage between nodes over time. This could mean that a combined MAC and routing protocol could significantly improve WSNs because the interaction between the MAC and network layers lets nodes be active at the same time in order to deal with data transmission. In the research presented in this thesis, a cross-layer protocol based on MAC and routing protocols was designed in order to improve the capability of WSNs for a range of different applications. Simulation results, based on a range of realistic scenarios, show that these new protocols improve WSNs by reducing their energy consumption as well as enabling them to support mobile nodes, where necessary. A number of conference and journal papers have been published to disseminate these results for a range of applications.

Production and Delivery (Optimization of production system and reliability)

This thesis is done to solve two issues for Sayid Paper Mill Ltd Pakistan. Section one deals with a practical problem arise in SPM that is cutting a given set of raw paper rolls of known length and width, and a set of product paper rolls of known length (equal to the length of raw paper rolls) and width, practical cutting constraints on a single cutting machine, according to demand orders for all customers. To solve this problem requires to determine an optimal cutting schedule to maximize the overall cutting process profitability while satisfying all demands and cutting constraints. The aim of this part of thesis is to develop a mathematical model which solves this problem.Second section deals with a problem of delivering final product from warehouse to different destinations by finding shortest paths. It is an operational routing problem to decide the daily routes for sending trucks to different destination to deliver their final product. This industrial problem is difficult and includes aspect such as delivery to a single destination and multiple destinations with limited resources. The aim of this part of thesis is to develop a process which helps finding shortest path.

Module property verification : A method to plan and perform quality verifications in modular architectures

Modular product architectures have generated numerous benefits for companies in terms of cost, lead-time and quality. The defined interfaces and the module’s properties decrease the effort to develop new product variants, and provide an opportunity to perform parallel tasks in design, manufacturing and assembly. The background of this thesis is that companies perform verifications (tests, inspections and controls) of products late, when most of the parts have been assembled. This extends the lead-time to delivery and ruins benefits from a modular product architecture; specifically when the verifications are extensive and the frequency of detected defects is high. Due to the number of product variants obtained from the modular product architecture, verifications must handle a wide range of equipment, instructions and goal values to ensure that high quality products can be delivered. As a result, the total benefits from a modular product architecture are difficult to achieve. This thesis describes a method for planning and performing verifications within a modular product architecture. The method supports companies by utilizing the defined modules for verifications already at module level, so called MPV (Module Property Verification). With MPV, defects are detected at an earlier point, compared to verification of a complete product, and the number of verifications is decreased. The MPV method is built up of three phases. In Phase A, candidate modules are evaluated on the basis of costs and lead-time of the verifications and the repair of defects. An MPV-index is obtained which quantifies the module and indicates if the module should be verified at product level or by MPV. In Phase B, the interface interaction between the modules is evaluated, as well as the distribution of properties among the modules. The purpose is to evaluate the extent to which supplementary verifications at product level is needed. Phase C supports a selection of the final verification strategy. The cost and lead-time for the supplementary verifications are considered together with the results from Phase A and B. The MPV method is based on a set of qualitative and quantitative measures and tools which provide an overview and support the achievement of cost and time efficient company specific verifications. A practical application in industry shows how the MPV method can be used, and the subsequent benefits

An approach to evaluate product verifications

Companies implement a module product assortment as a part of their strategy to, among others, shorten lead-times, increase the product quality and to create more product variants with fever parts. However, the increased number of variants becomes a challenging task for the personnel responsible for the product verifications. By implementing verifications at module level, so called MPV (Module Property Verification) several advantages ensue. The advantages is not only a decrease in cost of verifications, but also a decrease in repair times, occupied space, storages with spare parts, and repair tools. Further, MPV also give an increased product quality due to an increased understanding of which defects that may occur. As an approach to implement MPV, this paper discusses defects and verification processes based on a study at a Swedish company. It also describes a matrix which is used to map relations between company specific cost drivers and so called verification factors. The matrix may indicate cost drivers which have a large impact on the total cost of product verifications.

Correio híbrido: um ensaio prospectivo sobre o posicionamento estratégico da ECT

A Empresa Brasileira de Correios e Telégrafos (ECT) tem se engajado no esforço de exploração do mercado brasileiro de mensagens h íbridas mediante a prestação de serviços de correio híbrido, os quais permitem a remessa eletrônica e a entrega física de correspondências. O objetivo do presente trabalho foi analisar o posicionamento estratégico mais adequado para a ECT no mencionado mercado. Para tanto, procurou-se atingir os seguintes objetivos intermediários: i) apresentar o conceito de correio híbrido, seu processo de funcionamento, prestadores e usuários potenciais do serviço; ii) descrever a ECT e analisar seu contexto de atuação; iii) avaliar o mercado potencial de mensagens híbridas que a ECT pretende explorar através dos serviços de correio híbrido e iv) analisar a estrutura da indústria postal no Brasil. Para a elaboração do estudo, adotou-se, como referencial teórico, os seguintes modelos conceituais desenvolvidos por Michael Porter (1989): as cinco forças competitivas, a cadeia de valores e as estratégias competitivas genéricas. A partir dos resultados obtidos, concluiu-se que a estrutura da indústria postal brasileira recomenda a adoção de uma posição de baixo custo e escopo competitivo amplo no mercado de mensagens híbridas. Além disso, verificou-se que as soluções de correio híbrido constituem um tipo de inovação que pode ter um enorme efeito positivo não apenas sobre o custo, mas também sobre a diferenciação. Deste modo, recomenda-se que a ECT explore todas as oportunidades de diferenciação abertas pelo correio híbrido que não comprometam a posição de baixo custo, visto ser este o alvo estratégico primário.

Study of the innovation management process in the development of a discontinuous product case: Motorola RAZR V3

This study will collaborate by bringing some detailed analysis and findings on a special case study of a discontinuous product development process, trying to answer how the discontinuous product development process takes place and the main factors that influence this process. Additionally, it tried to explore some explanations for the difficulties generally faced by the companies to sustain innovation. The case is about the Motorola cell phone RAZR V3, launched in 2004. RAZR V3 was noted by industry experts as game-changing feat of design and engineering, selling more than 110 million units by end of 2008 and recognized as one of the fastest selling products in the industry. The study uses a single case methodology, which is appropriate given the access to a phenomenon that happened inside corporate dominium and it is not easily accessed for academic studies, besides being a rare case of success in the cellular phone industry. In order to magnify the understanding of the phenomenon, the exploration was extended to contrast the RAZR development process and the standard product development process in Motorola. Additionally, it was integrated a longitudinal reflection of the company product development evolution until the next breakthrough product hitting the cellular phone industry. The result of the analysis shows that discontinuous products do not fit well traditional product development process (in this case, stage-gate). This result reinforces the results obtained on previous studies of discontinuous product development conducted by other authors. Therefore, it is clear that the dynamics of discontinuous product development are different from the continuous product development, requiring different treatment to succeed. Moreover, this study highlighted the importance of the management influence in all the phases of the process as one of the most important factors, suggesting a key component to be carefully observed in future researches. Some other findings of the study that were considered very important for a discontinuous product development process: have champions (who believe and protect the project) and not only one champion; create a right atmosphere to make flow the creative process; question paradigms to create discontinuous products; simple guiding light to focus the team; company culture that accepts and knows how to deal with risks; and undoubtedly, have a company strategy that understands the different dynamics of continuous and discontinuous product development processes and treat them accordingly.

Advertising new product categories to new geographical markets

Em um ambiente global dinâmico e competitivo, muitas empresas notam que constante desenvolvimento e lançamento de novos produtos são atividades-chave para seu crescimento e sobrevivência. Hoje, um dos maiores desafios enfrentados por tais empresas envolve saber como agir em um mundo em que tanto o escopo como a estrutura do ambiente competitivo estão em constante mudança, e em que reestruturações e mudanças de portfólio são centrais para as companhias que visam capitalizar com o crescimento global. Tanto o rápido ritmo de inovação tecnológica quando a crescente afluência de economias emergentes apresentam riscos e oportunidades para as empresas, o que torna importante não apenas que estas estejam atentas ao lançamento de produtos de última geração para mercados desenvolvidos: faz-se também necessário que saibam como lançar produtos antigos para novos mercados. Usando o mercado brasileiro como um exemplo, esta dissertação procurou estudar como multinacionais têm utilizado anúncios publicitários no lançamento, para novos mercados, de categorias e subcategorias de produtos já vendidas em outros países. Após uma revisão da literatura disponível, do desenvolvimento de proposições, e da avaliação destas através de três estudos de caso, foi possível verificar a existência de alguma linearidade entre os casos e a literatura estudada, incluindo: uma busca pela legitimação da categoria que precede àquela pela da marca; o uso de “especialistas” para a legitimação da categoria; o uso de apelos baseados em argumentos; e a divulgação de mais de uma característica de produto por anúncio. No entanto, dadas algumas discrepâncias entre o que foi observado nos casos e aquilo descrito na literatura consultada, também foi possível verificar que a maneira como os anúncios são feitos em diferentes lugares depende igualmente do cenário competitivo enfrentado pela empresa, bem como de variantes econômicas e culturais específicas da localidade em questão.

Product placement in movies: a cross cultural study between Brazil and the USA

The broader objective of this study undertaking can briefly be articulated in particulate aims as follows: to measure the attitudes of consumers regarding the brand displayed by this strategy as well as to highlight recall, recognition and purchase intentions generated by product placement on consumers. In addition, check the differences and similarities between the behavior of Brazilian and American consumers caused by the influence of product placements. The study was undertaken targeting consumer audience in Brazil and the U.S. A rang3 modeling set ups were performed in order to realign study instruments and hypothesis towards the research objectives. This study gave focus on the following hypothesized models. H1: Consumers / Participants who viewed the brands / products in the movie have a higher brand / product recall compared to the consumers / participants who did not view the brands / products in the movie. H2: US Consumers / Participants are able to recognize and recall brands / products which appear in the background of the movie than Brazil. H3: Consumers / participants from USA are more accepting of product placements compared to their counterparts in Brazil. H4: There are discernible similarities in consumer / participant brand attitudes and purchase intentions in consumers / participants from USA and Brazil in spite of the fact that their country of origin is different. Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient ensured the reliability of survey instruments. The study involved the use of the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) for the hypothesis testing. This study used the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to assess both the convergent and discriminant validities instead of using the Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) or the Principal Component Analysis (PCA). This reinforced for the use of the regression Chi Square and T statistical tests in further. Only hypothesis H3 was rejected, the rest were not. T test provided insight findings on specific subgroup significant differences. In the SEM testing, the error variance for product placement attitudes was negative for both the groups. On this The Heywood Case came in handy to fix negative values. The researcher used both quantitative and qualitative approach where closed ended questionnaires and interviews respectively were used to collect primary data. The results were additionally provided with tabulations. It can be concluded that, product placement varies markedly in the U.S. from Brazil based on the influence a range of factors provided in the study. However, there are elements of convergence probably driven by the convergence in technology. In order, product placement to become more competitive in the promotional marketing, there will be the need for researchers to extend focus from the traditional variables and add knowledge on the conventional marketplace factors that is the sell-ability of the product placement technologies and strategies.

Operations strategy in perspective: the means for achieving superior performance

Manufacturing strategy has been widely studied and it is increasingly gaining attention. It has a fundamental role that is to translate the business strategy to the operations by developing the capabilities that are needed by the company in order to accomplish the desired performance. More precisely, manufacturing strategy comprises the decisions that managers take during a certain period of time in order to achieve a desire result. These decisions are related to which operational practices and resources are implemented. Our goal was to identify the relationship between these two decisions with operational performance. We based our arguments on the resource-based view for identifying sources of competitive advantage. Hence, we argued that operational practices and resources affect positively the operational performances. Additionally, we proposed that in the presence of some resources the implementation of operational practices would lead to a greater performance. We used previous scales for measuring operational practices and performance, and developed new constructs for resources. The data used is part of the High Performance Manufacturing project and the sample is composed by 291 plants. Through confirmatory factor analysis and multiple regressions we found that operational practices to a certain extant are positively related to operational performance. More specifically, the results show that JIT and customer orientation practices have a positive relationship with quality, delivery, flexibility, and cost performances. Moreover, we found that resources like technology and people explain a great variance of operational performance.

The online distribution strategy of luxury products and their vertical extensions

Uma importante tendência do mercado de luxo é a extensão de marca em um novo segmento de mercado por meio da chamada extensão vertical, que pode ser para cima ou para baixo. Em outras palavras, significa que a organização passa a atuar em um novo segmento dentro de uma mesma categoria de produtos, mas com diferente público-alvo que sua marca original. Nesse processo, a empresa inicia atividade em um novo segmento com diferente nível de luxo. A distribuição é um aspecto fundamental do composto de Marketing e a importância da internet como canal de distribuição dessa indústria tem aumentado expressivamente nos últimos anos. Dessa forma, faz-se necessário compreender como as marcas de luxo gerenciam suas estratégias de distribuição online quando desenvolvem processos de extensão de marca e penetração em novos segmentos. Com o objetivo de analisar a estratégia de distribuição da indústria de luxo, um estudo exploratório foi desenvolvido focando bens de luxo pessoal (em categorias como costura, relógios & jóias, couro e sapatos). Uma amostra significativa constituída de marcas originais e suas extensões foi analisada para constituir um modelo comparativo entre duas variáveis: o nível de diferenciação entre os canais de distribuição da marca original e suas extensões; e a distância entre as próprias marcas no que concerne ao seus posicionamentos. Esse estudo contribui para o entendimento da dinâmica de distribuição do mercado e colabora com a compreensão do comportamento das empresas que atuam nele, dependendo do tipo de extensões que elas desenvolvem e da forma como elas são conduzidas.

Análise dos fundamentos do modelo value-based health care delivery à luz das teorias de estratégia

O setor de saúde, globalmente, apresenta problemas relacionados aos seus custos, qualidade e acesso. Porter e Teisberg (2004, 2006) propuseram modelo de gestão específico para a administração estratégica na área, o Value-Based Health Care Delivery (VBHCD). O modelo teve relativa repercussão e vem influenciando muitos atores no setor. Contudo, o modelo vem sendo aceito sem o devido questionamento de seus fundamentos e consistência com a teoria em estratégia. O presente trabalho busca, por meio de um ensaio teórico, analisar o modelo proposto à luz de paradigmas gerais da estratégia empresarial como, por exemplo, o modelo de Porter e a Visão Baseada em Recursos (RBV). Inicialmente, o artigo sintetiza as explicações teóricas do modelo porteriano clássico e da RBV. Em seguida, o VBHCD é examinado comparado a essas explicações, buscando-se relações e, eventualmente, contradições. Conclui-se que o modelo VBHCD não se alinha integralmente a nenhum corpo teórico isoladamente. Mesmo sendo proposto por Porter, parte de seus fundamentos advém, na verdade, de outras correntes teóricas. Esta abordagem integradora de teorias concorrentes, apesar de presente na literatura, ainda apresenta dificuldades e barreiras, um aspecto que não está explícito no modelo

Functionalization of dendrimers for improved gene delivery to mesenchymal stem cell

Disease, injury, and age problems compromise human quality of life and continuously motivate the search for new and more efficacious therapeutic approaches. The field of Tissue Regeneration and Engineering has greatly evolved over the last years, mainly due to the combination of the important advances verified in Biomaterials Science and Engineering with those of Cell and Molecular Biology. In particular, a new and promising area arose – Nanomedicine – that takes advantage of the extremely small size and especial chemical and physical properties of Nanomaterials, offering powerful tools for health improvement. Research on Stem Cells, the self-renewing progenitors of body tissues, is also challenging to the medical and scientific communities, being expectable the appearance of new and exciting stem cell-based therapies in the next years. The control of cell behavior (namely, of cell proliferation and differentiation) is of key importance in devising strategies for Tissue Regeneration and Engineering. Cytokines, growth factors, transcription factors and other signaling molecules, most of them proteins, have been identified and found to regulate and support tissue development and regeneration. However, the application of these molecules in long-term regenerative processes requires their continuous presence at high concentrations as they usually present short half-lives at physiological conditions and may be rapidly cleared from the body. Alternatively, genes encoding such proteins can be introduced inside cells and be expressed using cell’s machinery, allowing an extended and more sustained production of the protein of interest (gene therapy). Genetic engineering of stem cells is particularly attractive because of their self-renewal capability and differentiation potential. For Tissue Regeneration and Engineering purposes, the patient’s own stem cells can be genetically engineered in vitro and, after, introduced in the body (with or without a scaffold) where they will not only modulate the behavior of native cells (stem cell-mediated gene therapy), but also directly participate in tissue repair. Cells can be genetically engineered using viral and non-viral systems. Viruses, as a result of millions of years of evolution, are very effective for the delivery of genes in several types of cells, including cells from primary sources. However, the risks associated with their use (like infection and immunogenic reactions) are driving the search for non-viral systems that will efficiently deliver genetic material into cells. Among them, chemical methods that are promising and being investigated use cationic molecules as carriers for DNA. In this case, gene delivery and gene expression level remain relatively low when primary cells are used. The main goal of this thesis was to develop and assess the in vitro potential of polyamidoamine (PAMAM) dendrimers based carriers to deliver genes to mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). PAMAM dendrimers are monodispersive, hyperbranched and nanospherical molecules presenting unique characteristics that make them very attractive vehicles for both drug and gene delivery. Although they have been explored for gene delivery in a wide range of cell lines, the interaction and the usefulness of these molecules in the delivery of genes to MSCs remains a field to be explored. Adult MSCs were chosen for the studies due to their potential biomedical applications (they are considered multipotent cells) and because they present several advantages over embryonic stem cells, such as easy accessibility and the inexistence of ethical restrictions to their use. This thesis is divided in 5 interconnected chapters. Chapter I provides an overview of the current literature concerning the various non-viral systems investigated for gene delivery in MSCs. Attention is devoted to physical methods, as well as to chemical methods that make use of polymers (natural and synthetic), liposomes, and inorganic nanoparticles as gene delivery vectors. Also, it summarizes the current applications of genetically engineered mesenchymal stem cells using non-viral systems in regenerative medicine, with special focus on bone tissue regeneration. In Chapter II, the potential of native PAMAM dendrimers with amine termini to transfect MSCs is evaluated. The level of transfection achieved with the dendrimers is, in a first step, studied using a plasmid DNA (pDNA) encoding for the β-galactosidase reporter gene. The effect of dendrimer’s generation, cell passage number, and N:P ratio (where N= number of primary amines in the dendrimer; P= number of phosphate groups in the pDNA backbone) on the level of transfection is evaluated, being the values always very low. In a second step, a pDNA encoding for bone morphogenetic protein-2, a protein that is known for its role in MSCs proliferation and differentiation, is used. The BMP-2 content produced by transfected cells is evaluated by an ELISA assay and its effect on the osteogenic markers is analyzed through several classical assays including alkaline phosphatase activity (an early marker of osteogenesis), osteocalcin production, calcium deposition and mineralized nodules formation (late osteogenesis markers). Results show that a low transfection level is enough to induce in vitro osteogenic differentiation in MSCs. Next, from Chapter III to Chapter V, studies are shown where several strategies are adopted to change the interaction of PAMAM dendrimers with MSCs cell membrane and, as a consequence, to enhance the levels of gene delivery. In Chapter III, generations 5 and 6 of PAMAM dendrimers are surface functionalized with arginine-glycine-aspartic acid (RGD) containing peptides – experiments with dendrimers conjugated to 4, 8 and 16 RGD units were performed. The underlying concept is that by including the RGD integrin-binding motif in the design of the vectors and by forming RGD clusters, the level of transfection will increase as MSCs highly express integrins at their surface. Results show that cellular uptake of functionalized dendrimers and gene expression is enhanced in comparison with the native dendrimers. Furthermore, gene expression is dependent on both the electrostatic interaction established between the dendrimer moiety and the cell surface and the nanocluster RGD density. In Chapter IV, a new family of gene delivery vectors is synthesized consisting of a PAMAM dendrimer (generation 5) core randomly linked at the periphery to alkyl hydrophobic chains that vary in length and number. Herein, the idea is to take advantage of both the cationic nature of the dendrimer and the capacity of lipids to interact with biological membranes. These new vectors show a remarkable capacity for internalizing pDNA, being this effect positively correlated with the –CH2– content present in the hydrophobic corona. Gene expression is also greatly enhanced using the new vectors but, in this case, the higher efficiency is shown by the vectors containing the smallest hydrophobic chains. Finally, chapter V reports the synthesis, characterization and evaluation of novel gene delivery vectors based on PAMAM dendrimers (generation 5) conjugated to peptides with high affinity for MSCs membrane binding - for comparison, experiments are also done with a peptide with low affinity binding properties. These systems present low cytotoxicity and transfection efficiencies superior to those of native dendrimers and partially degraded dendrimers (Superfect®, a commercial product). Furthermore, with this biomimetic approach, the process of gene delivery is shown to be cell surface receptor-mediated. Overall, results show the potential of PAMAM dendrimers to be used, as such or modified, in Tissue Regeneration and Engineering. To our knowledge, this is the first time that PAMAM dendrimers are studied as gene delivery vehicles in this context and using, as target, a cell type with clinical relevancy. It is shown that the cationic nature of PAMAM dendrimers with amine termini can be synergistically combined with surface engineering approaches, which will ultimately result in suitable interactions with the cytoplasmic membrane and enhanced pDNA cellular entry and gene expression. Nevertheless, the quantity of pDNA detected inside cell nucleus is always very small when compared with the bigger amount reaching cytoplasm (accumulation of pDNA is evident in the perinuclear region), suggesting that the main barrier to transfection is the nuclear membrane. Future work can then be envisaged based on the versatility of these systems as biomedical molecular materials, such as the conjugation of PAMAM dendrimers to molecules able to bind nuclear membrane receptors and to promote nuclear translocation.

Subconjunctival Delivery of Antibiotics in a Controlled-Release System A Novel Anti-infective Prophylaxis Approach for Cataract Surgery

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Amphotericin B Microemulsion Reduces Toxicity and Maintains the Efficacy as an Antifungal Product

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)