We recently had the opportunity to sit down virtually with Dr. David Meyer and Dr. Glenn Bryan, key contributors to the evaluation of the CGIAR Genetic Innovation Science Group (GI SG) under the SG evaluations umbrella (visit Portal). In this Q& A, David and Glenn share their insights and key takeaways from the real-time evaluation process. Their expertise highlights the achievements and challenges of the GI SG while exploring future directions for partnerships, breeding strategies, and innovative approaches in global agriculture as part of the new CGIAR portfolio.
Key takaways
- Complex evaluation process with challenges in navigating CGIAR’s partnerships and structure.
- Partnerships with NARS and the private sector are vital to CGIAR's success.
- Transitioning from technical to strategic perspectives highlights the need for organizational effectiveness.
- CGIAR should adopt a "seed business" mindset for end-to-end innovation and sustainability.
- Future evaluations should focus on clearer roles, communication, and field engagement.
1. How did the evaluation process meet your expectations? What did you learn about the process evaluations: your contribution and outputs (case studies, report)
David: The evaluation process was actually much more complex than I anticipated, and at times, it wasn’t entirely clear how we should proceed or what specific inputs or outputs were expected. Despite that, I’d say the evaluation met my expectations overall—My role involved evaluating partnerships with NARS (National Agricultural Research Systems) and the private sector, which was a huge task given the variety of contexts, from small local private companies to multinationals across multiple countries. One of the toughest parts was distilling the insights across so many diverse partners and identifying overarching themes relevant to the broader partnership landscape. My primary contribution was a report from my specific case study on partnerships with NARS and the private sector. I also contributed to the overarching GI SG evaluation report that synthesized findings from three case studies and connected with other evidence into one comprehensive document
Glenn: My role was primarily to look at synergies among the different CGIAR partners as well as with external stakeholders, with a particular focus on how such interactions accelerate crop improvement and provide benefits to stakeholders. The GI SG evaluative process was more high-level than I expected, focusing on organizational structure, management, and communication rather than the more technical outputs that I’m accustomed to. I typically dive into the technical details, so the broader, bird’s-eye view approach required a big shift in my usual mindset and proved quite challenging.
2. What were the pleasant surprises in the evaluation process and results?
Glenn: I gained valuable insights on the importance of strong partnerships and the breadth of CGIAR’s work across regions, although adapting to a high-level perspective was difficult. Observing the other subject matter experts, like David and Bettina, also taught me a lot about viewing impact through a structural and management-focused lens rather than a purely technical one. I was also impressed by the depth of knowledge and professionalism of CGIAR staff, particularly in areas like gender, leadership, and partnerships. Their competencies, especially among those in leadership roles, gave me confidence in CGIAR’s direction and the positive potential for future impact.
David: I was really encouraged by the dedication of the people I encountered—they were consistently hardworking and committed to CGIAR’s mission. They believed deeply in the organization’s role to improve lives by developing the right varieties that address their local needs. Despite the difficulties of their jobs, I was pleased to see so many people maintaining their passion and commitment to serving farmers, which was incredibly refreshing.
3. What were the main challenges in developing your case studies and the evaluation report for GI SG, including recommendations?
David: The main challenge was figuring out where to start—evaluating something as big and multidimensional as Genetic Innovation at CGIAR and associated partnerships is no small feat. I come from a private industry background, where roles are often more clearly defined. Here, understanding the complexities across different NARS programs was a challenge in itself. These programs are at different stages of evolution—some focus on basic evaluations, others on limited breeding or the full breeding pipeline and product development. Each has unique needs, which made creating a universal set of science group level recommendations quite challenging.
Glenn: The overwhelming amount of information and unclear initial structure made it difficult to get started. Communication was often inconsistent, with last-minute changes to meetings and schedules, which disrupted workflow. Also, unfortunately, not being able to engage with people in person due to scheduling challenges with field visits meant it was harder to build a full, firsthand understanding of the issues. We were happy to learn from our team member’s field trip to Ghana (blog). Other obstacle uncovered CGIAR’s management’s hesitation to allow flexible resource allocation. Additionally, some responses from CGIAR leadership felt muted, possibly because they are awaiting the appointment of a new chief scientist, who is likely to influence the direction and execution of future recommendations.
4. What type of partners has GI SG initiatives been successful in involving with? How should they strategically, efficiently and effectively leverage partnerships, and at what level?
Glenn: The GI initiatives has been successful in forming partnerships with both national research systems (NARS) and private sector players, especially in large-scale crops like maize and wheat. For example, collaborations with private seed companies have provided valuable expertise that can help CGIAR staff focus on smaller, locally critical crops. Moving forward, CGIAR should strategically focus on building alliances with key national and regional stakeholders, from farmers and local organizations to larger entities. Leveraging partnerships efficiently will require detailed market intelligence to identify key players and allocate resources across CGIAR’s diverse crop portfolio. Private-sector partnerships, when handled with oversight to maintain public interest, could be especially effective for advancing agricultural innovation while ensuring community needs remain at the forefront.
David: GI SG has done a great job partnering with both multinational and private companies on the technical breeding side. They’ve collaborated effectively on areas like trait identification, selection, and molecular tools, which has given CGIAR access to high-throughput resources. But going forward, we need to move beyond technical partnerships to cover areas like operational excellence, training, and intrinsic motivation. Private sector partnerships can provide valuable insights here, especially with larger companies that have invested heavily in leadership and relational skills training. This is where I see partnerships evolving to support the bigger picture.
5. What would be the top 3 immediate and concrete pieces of advice (guided by the response from Management to recommendations).
David: First, NARS partners need to feel valued and included as equals in the process. We have to prioritize a two-way partnership with NARS where they feel their voices are heard, and they gain tangible benefits from their involvement. Second, as CGIAR evolves into its “Breeding for Tomorrow” phase, it should shift from being science-driven to having more of a seed business mindset that considers the whole end-to-end process. It’s about moving beyond just the science to the whole end to end process to ensure varieties reach the people who need them in ways that add value. Finally, we need to focus on relational skills, as much of this work hinges on effective handoffs and teamwork. There’s been a lot of emphasis on technical skills, but now it’s time to strengthen leadership and soft skills to support the full journey from research to impact.
Glenn: I’d recommend stronger partnerships and improve communication within CGIAR and with national partners, as solid relationships are critical to success. Shifting toward a “seed business” mindset could help CGIAR prioritize actionable outputs over purely academic research. Additionally, integrating genetic innovation with agronomy and plant health is essential for sustainability in the face of climate challenges. Ensuring strong, adaptable leadership across CGIAR would also allow the organization to respond better to evolving needs in these areas.
6. To wrap up, what would you like to learn more on the evaluations, and role of subject-matter expert like yourself in evaluation teams?
Glenn: This process taught me a lot about evaluating programs at a high level, but I felt somewhat out of my depth and often “behind the curve” compared to other experts more comfortable with strategic assessments. If I were to participate in something like this again, I would like to understand more about best practices in evaluating partnerships, organizational effectiveness, and strategic alignment rather than purely technical aspects. Learning from others’ experiences in evaluation would also help me become more comfortable in this kind of role, although I’d probably feel more effective on a technically focused evaluation team.
David: For future evaluations, I’d like to see clearer guidance on roles and outcomes so we can spend time on tasks that bring the most value. Personally, I’d also love the opportunity to spend time with people on the ground, and a more hands-on approach would really help me understand the day-to-day challenges they’re facing.
For more in-depth insights and to explore the full evaluation of the Science Goups, visit the SG Evaluation Portal.
About the authors
Dr. David H. Meyer
Subject Matter Expert
40 years career at Corteva AgriSciences, focusing on plant breeding, genetics, R&D strategy, and regenerative agriculture initiatives. David is based in USA
Dr. Glenn James Bryan
Subject Matter Expert
40+ years in genetics and breeding, has published 100+ papers, and led the maintenance of a large genebank. Glenn is based in Scotland
