Round 1 feedback

Feedback to unsuccessful shortlisted proposals
Shortly after the Nairobi Best Bets event, the four shortlisted proposals that were not funded received detailed feedback on the reasons their proposals had not been selected by the panellists. Extracts from this feedback are provided below.

The presentation

'We think your presentation lacked the real key messages of what you were planning to do, what was different and what is the real rate of return.'

'The opening two minutes of the presentation concentrated on the lead organization as opposed to the proposal itself. In hindsight it may have been better to scale this back.'

'Whilst we were not expecting the panel to be experts in the topic, it was very evident that the panel did have some difficulty in getting to grips with your idea. They appeared to struggle with what your role was and what the uniqueness of your model was.'

Scale of impact

'There was a feeling that the lead organization undersold themselves promoting this technology in a relatively small geographical area - the impact could/should have been much greater if another area was chosen.'

'The work to date has been very successful at a small scale, yet little is known about this outside those areas. There was a feeling that an improved awareness campaign would help the situation greatly.'

Nearness to market

'We thought your pitch was very well delivered but maybe your concept was further away from market than others… you were seeking RIU support to finish defining the value chain whereas others had already gone past this stage.'

Justification for the investment by RIU

'It was unclear why such an investment …was needed just to scale out something that was already proven to work in other countries. It was unclear why public sector funding should pay for something that was very much in the interest of the seed companies.'

'It may be much better for the RIU to suggest distribution via well established networks which are already proven to reach small-scale farmers. Certainly the panel was not convinced by the numbers associated to your proposal and I would suggest this gets strengthened for any future presentation.'

'We appreciate the importance of this crop and particularly to women but your proposal failed to convince the panel - in hindsight maybe some key facts and figures could have hammered the point home.'

'More than most proposals, yours made a real attempt to quantify the rates of return and although you were challenged on this - the subsequent discussion really got to the heart of the issue - the lack of awareness of the benefits of [the technology].'

Other issues

'We felt your presentation struggled to articulate the concept you were proposing but accept that the format of presentation may not have been geared to one looking at policy influence.'

'Whilst it was accepted that regulatory processes were different it was not clear what the proposed consortium would do that did not mirror what was already in existence.'

'We fully accept the panelists were not technical specialists- this was deliberate. Well articulated responses to issues such as land tenure need to be prepared as these tended to undermine your presentation'.

Feedback from participants at the RIU Best Bet event, Nairobi
A simple questionnaire was completed by the participants after they had made their presentations to the panel and before the results were announced. Thirteen completed questionnaire were received.

The questionnaire asked six questions, each of which was scored on a scale from 1 to 4 (where 1 = No, Not at all, Poor; and 4 = Yes, Absolutely, Excellent). The number of respondents for each score is shown in the table below along with the mean score for each question:

	Score
Question	1	2	3	4	Mean score
Were the objectives of the original call clear?	0	1	5	7	3.5
Was the format for the business plan helpful?	0	1	7	5	3.3
Was the media training helpful?	0	0	2	11	3.8
Were the right people on the panel?	0	1	8	4	3.2
Was the Best Bets approach appropriate and effective?	1	0	5	7	3.4
Will you consider that you have gained from your involvement?	1	1	2	9	3.5

Score of 1 = No, Not at all, Poor        Score of 4 = Yes, Absolutely, Excellent

In addition, participants were invited to make any other comments

'Sharing information was very useful'

'Business plan was neither a business plan or a proposal'

'Useful to have third person [presenting to panel]'

'It would be helpful to review videos made during the media training'

'Media training should be given to all RIU partners'

'I like the speed with which the proposals were handled'

'Some of the wording in the business plan was confusing'

'Process biased towards simple research'

'I liked the emphasis on doing things differently'

'Concept of presenting business plan was excellent'

After the Best Bets event detailed feedback was provided to the four teams whose proposals were not funded. While they were understandably disappointed not to have been selected, the participants were generally very positive about the process:

'Thanks for this [feedback on the presentation]. It has been very helpful... We were also disappointed because the Best Bets programme is clearly an innovative approach towards funding, and we were looking forward to being part of it.'

'I personally found RIU's approach very engaging and educative at the same time. While we felt disappointed that our proposal did not qualify, we left with the sense that the whole undertaking was worthwhile... We appreciate your comments which I believe will help us in the next round.'

'The feedback is indeed helpful and I found the whole process enjoyable and refreshingly different. Thanks for all of your support throughout.'

'I'd like to thank you and your team for the genial and constructive support you've provided throughout this process. It's been a real pleasure to deal with you and, despite the disappointment, we enjoyed the process.'