Searsolin Final Report - Draft

8/22/2019 Searsolin Final Report - Draft

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/searsolin-final-report-draft 1/45

1

SEARSOLIN OD

WORKSHOP

Documentation Report[Type the document subtitle]

This document contains highlight as well as the process of the

SEARSOLIN OD Workshop and learning exercise for the

proposed re-invention of SEARSOLIN.

8/3/2013



Process Documentation Report for SEARSOLIN Organizational Development Workshop 2

Executive Summary

The second SEARSOLIN Organizational Development Workshop provided the learning and knowledge

building exercise with the following objectives:

1. Re-articulate the Vision and Mission of the Institute

2. Recommend relevant programs of study and training offerings;

3. Identify the necessary resources (e.g. teachers, trainers, formators, staff, learning

resources, facilities, etc) required for the successful implementation of these re-

designed programs; and

4. Propose administrative arrangements by which XU can provide these required resources

in ways that SEARSOLIN becomes integrated with XU’s structures and systems.

The invited resource person and facilitators have helped processed these objectives into meaningful

activities aided with their experiences of doing social development work in Asia and as well as in Europe

as well as business models that have enriched the discussions and workshops into as well as the sharingtheir insights and learning points of the present trends and challenges of doing social development work

in the context of Asia and beyond.

Major Highlights

1. The present SEARSOLIN Vision and Mission statement has been re-defined to respond to the

various challenges and present landscape of doing social development work in Asia and to the

rest of the world;

2. The proposed business model generation framework has identified dynamic and innovative

techniques in identifying SEARSOLIN’s resources as well as its position in the intensely

competitive arena and has lead to redesign the institute’s business model;

3. Identified new program offerings through thematic courses as well as its various components in

the course and service offerings; and

4. Re-design the strategically and conscientiously the structural arrangement of SEARSOLIN vis-à-

vis the university and its external factors that may provide a more efficient and cost-effective

facilitation of its operations.

Recommendations:

1. Provide the mechanism for resources generation in the structural, operational, human resources

support for the re-invention of SEARSOLIN;2. Adapt the structural arrangements proposed by the committee;

3. Compose a ad-hoc technical committee that can serve as a think-tank in collaboration with the

Executive Director of SEARSOLIN for its operational and administrative needs;

4. ….

5. ….




Preliminaries

A. Recap

The workshop started with a reflection on the video entitled Look at the World by John Milford Rutter.

The Facilitator then provided a quick recap of the highlights of previous workshop which has provided an

opportunity for the committee members and participants to:

RE-live the rich history and celebrate the valuable accomplishments of SEARSOLIN

through the valuable experiences and insights gained in and through the friendship,

companionship and professional dealings with its founder, Fr William Masterson of the

invited resource persons: Bishop Antonio Ledesma SJ, Mr Roberto Ansaldo and Dr

Anselmo Mercado1;

Challenge the present status quo and pursue various paths and ways for SEARSOLIN to

respond to the greater needs of effectively addressing the present external demands of

forming rural development workers that is 21st

Century in orientation but while at the

same time grounded and contextualized in the values and orientation of the Institute ’s

re-vitalized vision, mission, values and directions;

Harnessing the Institute’s internal human and organizational resources in order to

revitalize the internal linkages within the university structure that in the process define

the parameters of continued social development engagement in the Asia Pacific Region

and the world over through its present affiliations and networks; and

Tap the alumni, partners, intended clients and students, funding agencies and other

possible sources to gather valuable inputs for a more collaborative and process-oriented

feedback on the present organizational development process of SEARSOLIN.

B. Input from the Resource Person

Raquel Polestico presented SEARSOLIN Re-envisioning. Her

presentation has four main parts:

a. Remembering Fr Masterson

She started her sharing by acknowledging that

it was in 1964 that SEARSOLIN was founded by FrMasterson, SJ. She added that the main reason of its

founding was for Xavier University’s College of

Agriculture to share its development experience with

other countries. She further added that the initial funding source for the institute was from

1 Please see the attached document on Executive Process Documentation Report on Workshop 1.




MISEREOR, Masterson Family, DANCHURCHAID, German Agro-Action, and Lewis Foundation.

And that SEARSOLIN’s conception was modeled after COADY International Institute in Canada.

b. Bri

ef

His

tor

ica

l

Re

vie

w

i. Executive Directors. She recalled the leaders of the Institute who have made the Institute

what it is today in this order:

1. 1974 – Fr. William F. Masterson, S.J., founder and first director of SEARSOLIN &

College of Agriculture, Xavier University. He was awarded prestigious MAGSAYSAY

AWARD for “International Understanding.

2. 1984 – Fr. Antonio J. Ledesma, S.J. – SEARSOLIN’s 2nd

director (1984-1993) and

Dean/Director of the College of Agriculture Complex (1984-1996)

3. 1993 - Dr. Anselmo Mercado, staff since 1964 and Director in 1993 and very active

in the cooperative movement

4. 2005 - Fr. Nilo, Labra, S.J.

5. 2010 - Fr. Rene Tacastacas, S.J.

ii. SEARSOLINER’s Profile

She then presented the present profile of the institute as follows:




iii. Distribution by Sub-Regional Areas from 1964 to 2011, total of 2,085 SEARSOLINERS:

iv. Gender Distribution from 1964 to 2011:

v. Religious Affiliations:




vi. Organizational Affiliations from 1964 to 2011

vii. Personal Roles from 1964 to 2004

viii.

Nature of work SEARSOLINERs’ from 1964 to 2011




ix. Target Communities

x. xi.

xii. Analysis of the Development Action Plans

xiii. Evaluations Done on the SEARSOLIN Program

1. 1985 – Ist Review & Evaluation of SEARSOLIN’s Program Conducted by CENDHRRA –

Positive findings of its roles & impact2. 1996 – 2nd Review & Evaluation of SEARSOLIN program, done by an (evaluation and

visioning team” – reformulated & renewed SEARSOLIN’s Vision – Mission, Strategies

and Programs)

3. 2011 - Evaluation commissioned by Ecumenical Scholarship Program for participants

from Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Timor Leste




xiv. SEARSOLIN After Twenty-One Years: An Evaluation 1985. Highlights of the evaluation are as

follows:

a. Background of the evaluation:

1. Conducted by the Center for Development of Human Resources in Rural Asia (CENDRA)

by Josepth Francia, Ngo Huy Liem, Edgardo Valenzuela, Angelita Ledesma

2. Looked at the Training Programs, Sponsors, Assessment of Resources, Relevance of

SEARSOLIN in the Asian Region

3. Framework: Objectives – Training Program Effects on the Trainees-Impact on

Development

4. Took Seven Months to Finish (February to August 1985)

b. SEARSOLIN Profile:

1. SEARSOLIN was an idea the time of which has come (Economic Growth and Increased

Production through Community Development)

2. Very much influenced by COADY International Institute in the beginning

3. A course on Agricultural Extension was taught by the Israreli Team

4. It was the force of Fr Masterson’s personality and ideas that influenced the early

participants of SEARSOLIN

5. The establishment of a Just Social Order was Fr Masterson’s Impossible Dream

c. Areas of Growth:

1. There is a need to follow-up the SEARSOLINERs after they graduate for its long term

goal

2. Distinguish Social Leadership to include organizational management, technical,

Advocates, Value-Forming Subjects, etc.

3. Go beyond XU College of Agriculture for teaching and context

4. Root its analysis and program on the basis of Asian setting

5. SEARSOLINERS work in Program/Project Planning, Supervision, Training and Education,

Cooperatives should be incorporated in the program offerings

6. SEARSOLINERS shifted work to be more in development-related jobs (Community

Development, Adult Education, Agricultural Extension, Less in Government work

d. Notable Expressed Needs, Program Re-orientation and Affirmations

1. In the latter part, there was decreased attention to Cooperatives and Community

Organizing because of Martial Law Years (1972 – 1985)

2. 86% of the SEARSOLINERS affirmed the relevance of SEARSOLIN Program

3. Perceived most relevant to participants from Africa, South Asia, Southeast Asia

4. Contributes more to in understanding of development issues, technical skills, and

improved management skills and in increasing motivation to be a leader

5. Recommended in-house counsellor to assist in value-formation of individual and group

leadership




e. Faculty members and resource persons

1. Continue the practice of faculty development of SEARSOLIN Staff

2. 75% of faculty from the Philippines, 25% Foreigner

3. SEARSOLINERS should get a core faculty who come from SEARSOLINERS’ home

countries

4. Intercultural exchanges among the participants and community be maximized

f. Main Recommendations:

1. Have a systematic design of programs based on the feedback from the trainees and

current problems of development

2. SEARSOLIN could be a Center of Practical Development, Research, Consultancies to

enrich the training program and to keep its international character

3. Financial sustainability can be ensured with the relevance of the programs and internal

and diverse sources of incomes

4. SEARSOLIN can pursue a development strategy that can require integration of action-

research, management of projects, and financial self-reliance

g. “Credo of Development and Solidarity”(Collectively written by SEARSOLINERs and

others, SEARSOLIN Review Workshop, Taichung, Taiwan, April 18-14, 1994)

I believe that people are the most important resource.

I believe in God creating us in peace and solidarity.

I believe that education is vital for development.

I believe in working in solidarity with the poor.

I strongly believe in the political and economic development of the people.

I believe in doing together. I believe in changing society for a better future.

I believe in people and their ability to form communities.

I believe “happiness lies in enriching others.”

I believe that impossible things can be done.

I believe in nurturing the little seeds within us.

I believe in SEARSOLIN and the SEARSOLINER.

i. Developing Rural Social Leadership in Southeast Asia: An Evaluation of the SEARSOLIN-

ESP Scholarship for SLDT 2006-2011 by Ed Quitoriano

1. Objectives:

1. To capture outcomes of the project;

2. To track the progress of participants’ Development Action Plans (DAPs);

3. Document impacts on partners and projects and programs;

4. Document lessons learnt; and,

5. Put forward recommendations for possible reorientation and/or adaptation in

future cooperation with ESP




2. Comparative Profile of SLDT Graduates:

Attributes 1964-2011 2006-2011 (Overall) 2006-2011 ESP-MCC

Scholars

Gender 30.9% Female 44.0% female 39.5% female

Occupation: Community

Workers

36.64% 28.7% 16.2%

Religious Affiliation 69.8% Christian 79% Christian 74.4% Christian

Education 69% college to

graduate level

73% college to

graduate level

79% college to

graduate level

Age Group 20-40 yrs old 80% 68.6% 92.9%

Civil Status: Married 43.25% 53% 55.8%

Institutional Affiliation:

Government

16.93% 11% 4.6%

3. Southeast Asia SEARSOLINERS

4. Relevance (1) - Performance Rating: 1.45

- Strategic fit between SLDT and individual and organizational needs and

enhancement of assets

1112

5

33

10131

2

SEARSOLINERS from Southeast Asia, 2006-

2011

Cambodia

Indonesia

Lao PDR

Myanmar

Vietnam

Philippines

East Timor

5

23

6

ESP & MCC Scholars 2006-2011

Cambodia

East Timor

Lao PDR

Myanmar

Vietnam




- In terms of ranking of what is most relevant to ESP scholars and sending

organizations:

Most relevant module: Modules 1, 4, 2 and 6. Among the four, Module 1

(Participator y Approaches to Development), Module 2 Social

Entrepreneurship, Module 2 Sustainable Agriculture, Module 6 Monitoring

and Evaluation)

Second most relevant module: Modules 5, 3, 2 and 6. Module 5- Peace and

Development, Module 3 – Cooperatives

Third most relevant module: All modules and DAP (Development Action Plan)

5. Relevance (2) - Emergent Realities and Needs:

1. Climate change and environment

2. Research methods and data analysis

3. Human rights and human trafficking

4. Migration

5. Disaster reduction and community-based disaster preparedness

6. Value chain

7. Gender

8. Microfinance

9. Financial management

6. Effectiveness (Performance Rating: 1.66)

1. Effective utilization of the SLDT by the scholars and sending organizations

2. ESP scholars able to transfer acquired knowledge and skills to staff of their

organizations and to radiate to communities; ESP scholars/SLDT graduates

have shown capacity to reproduce rural social leaders in various disciplines

3. DAPs: generally not implemented as designed but are integrated into

organizational agendas and developed into project proposals. Samples

presented in the evaluation workshop show high level of financial resource

generation and enhancement of development initiatives in communities

4. SLDT utilization: ESP scholars gain broad knowledge and skills but generally

select specific knowledge and skills according to their designations and

assignments and personal preferences




7. Sustainability Rating:

1. At SEARSOLIN level: historical evidence shows high level of sustainability but

vulnerable to declines in foreign scholarships; but the asset base is solid and could

be harnessed to increase the sustainability rate

2. At scholar and partner level: multiplier and radiation effects indicate high level of

sustainability especially in the social, ecological and financial dimensions.

8. Impact – Performance Rating: 1.72

1. Stakeholder perceptions (based on survey results) suggest positive impacts of the

SLDT but hard to measure in the evaluation exercise

2. Likelihood of confusing outcome level results with impacts




3. Lack of clear baselines in the external economic, social, political and ecological

settings make it difficult to determine impacts

4. DAPs integrated into organizational agendas and developed as projects are still

ongoing. Impacts could not yet be determined

9. Multiplier Effect

1. Per capita scholarship cost is around USD 10,000 but scholars have shown capacity

to multiply and radiate results of up to 30 times in financial resource generation

and continuous time in human capital formation

2. Human capital formation at organizational and community levels tend to be

geometric in multiplication

10. Success Factor Steering

1. Two layer managerial hierarchy

2. Directional guidance by the XSF Board

3. Lean but efficient core structure around SLDT

4. Proximity of resource persons within the XU system

5. Clear allocation of roles and tasks

11. Success Factor: Strategy

1. Effectiveness of SLDT as strategy for developing rural social leadership

2. Pooling of resources for SLDT delivery

3. Needs improvement in financial resource mobilization strategy

4. KM strategy needs to be more explicit and needs to harness ICT

12. Success Factor: Processes

1. Strategic decision making processes at level of XSF Board

2. Operational processes at level of SEARSOLIN management

3. Efficient sequencing of activities and outputs in the SLDT




4. Some flaws in strategic planning (especially in documentation and dissemination of

results)

13. Success Factor: Cooperation

1. Positive collaboration within the XU system

2. Effective collaboration with around 50 experts for the SLDT modules

3. Strategic linkages with national and international organizations

4. Under-studied collaboration with local governments and local dioceses

14. Success Factor: Learning and Innovation

1. Modular approach to SLDT

2. Paradigm shift from DCBA to ABCD

3. Need more joint learning exercises with SEARSOLINERS and partner organizations

4. Scholars’ innovations in DAP implementation (various modalities)

15. Conclusion

a. Successful project

b. Strong sense of ownership by stakeholders

c. High performance rating (overall and specific to relevance, efficiency,

effectiveness, sustainability and impact)

d. Overall rating and specific ratings for relevance, efficiency, effectiveness and

sustainability supported by quantitative and qualitative evidence

e. High rating of impact based on perceptions of stakeholders but need further

examination using appropriate impact evaluation methodology across a wide area

and long timeline

f. High return on scholarship investments with multiplier effects of up to 30 times of

the financial cost per capita

g. Most outcomes are still unquantifiable for lack of documentation and M&E system

h. Need to strengthen regional and in-country environmental analysis and baselines

as reference for impact assessments

16. Overall Recommendations:

a. Joint lesson learning exercises with partners and SEARSOLINERs

b. Optimization of SEARSOLINERS in the region

c. Inter-operable M&E

d. Inclusivity; broaden outreach to potential rural social leaders from other religious

backgrounds

17. Recommendations for SEARSOLIN

a. Document and inform stakeholders of the 2008 strategic plan

b. Develop in-country trainings in cooperation with SEARSOLINERS and sending

organizations

c. Mobilize ICT for communications and education

d. SLDT modules: continuous updating

e. Assess and learn lessons from previous DAPs




f. ‘market segmentation’

g. Financial health: broaden income streams; review HR and salary structure

h. M&E and lesson learning

18. Recommendation for Sending Organizations

a. Contribute to analysis of outcomes of the SLDT as a whole and the DAPs in

particular

b. Maintain partnership with SEARSOLIN for continuous lesson learning and mutual

support

c. Explicit policy on gender

19. Quo Vadis SEARSOLIN (Future?)

a. “The harvest is great, the laborers are few.”

Continuing program for Human Resource Development (formation of leaders for

Asia and other developing countries)

b. Advocacy role in poverty alleviation, urban and rural development, food security,

social justice, people empowerment & community organizing, the “ABCD”

approach, active support for the Cooperativism

c. Partnership with other Organization

d. Trainings in other countries

e. Sustainability issues/concerns (financial, organizational, etc)

20. Linkages and Networking

a. ASIAN NGO COALITION (ANGOC), AsiaDHRRA, APPROTECH ASIA

b. ACCU

c. GLOBAL VILLAGE ENERGY PARTNERSHIP

Action Research on the Asset-Based Community Development Approach (ABCD) with Coady Institute

assisted by: DR.ANSELMO MERCADO,RACHEL POLESTICO, VIC TAGUPA, LUTHER LABITAD, and AMYPATRIARCA







Discussion points on Ms Rachel’s Presentation:

It was acknowledged that Ms Rachel’s presentation was a providential in her postponed of her

presentation because of schedule overlaps during the first workshop on Celebrating Milestones. It was

also affirmed that her presentation of SEARSOLIN is comprehensive enough to provide a leveling-off

among the participants of the workshop.




II. Workshop on Business Model

The workshop then continued with the

introduction of the two main facilitators, namely,

Dr Christina Liamzon and Tony Quizon.

Dr Liamzon started the session by presenting some

points to leveling off expectations given the

revised program flow of the proposed OD

Workshop of SEARSOLIN. She started her input by

acknowledging the wealth of materials that have

been sources of information and knowledge of the

institute through resource materials, valuable

input of Rachel Polestico’s presentation specially on the impact study and the proposed

recommendations for SEARSOLIN, as well as acknowledging some limitations on scope and breadth of

other materials that may help shed light on the various challenges and areas of growth that may be

looked into in the process and other sources of information such as:

- Inputs from the alumni, partners, funding agencies, partners and networks of the institute;

- Inputs on the present trends and challenges of doing social development work in Asia;

- Move from the wealth of the institute’s to the inputs of coming forward considering the

various trends in the Asian region;

- SWOT Analysis of Mr Ansaldo;

- Input from ideas of the committee;

- Inputs from other stakeholders: alumni, donors who have given to SEARSOLIN, commenting

on what they can contribute to the evolution of SEARSOLIN;- Partners in other ateneos; and

- Other potential sources of information that can help provide substantial feedback in the

Organizational Development Process in 20 years down the line to help process the short

term, long term projections of the planning exercise.

She then urged the committee to consider the aforementioned ideas in mobilizing the proposed

strategy in order to lead the group towards the formulation of the business model that could be the

interim, be the curiicula of the course until we have a bigger picture of the formation and training

courses and SEARSOLIN could be doing, for a organization, research or whatever that may be.

She further challenged and urged members of the committee to be fluid or flexible in the various

exercises that the facilitators may propose to better enhance the felt synergy and collaborative spirit

that is pervading among members of the committee.

She then shared her experience of the fruitful experience of using the book written by Alexander

Osterwalder and Yves Pigneur entitled Business Model Generation. This was very helpful to her when

she was using this as a tool for her social entrepreneurship engagement with the overseas Filipino




workers in Europe. She presented an excerpt from the book on Generating New Business Model Ideas,

which states:

1. Need for a creative process to generate a large number of business model ideas and successfully

isolating the best one – process called ‘ideation’.

2. One challenge in doing this: to ignore the status quo and suspend concerns over operational

issues

3. Business model innovation is not about looking at the past at his indicates little about what is

possible in terms of future business models; it is not about looking to competitors as business

model innovation is not about copying but about creating new mechanisms to create value. –

aims to deign original models that meet unsatisfied, new or hidden customer needs.

4. Ideation has two main phases: ideas generation where quantity matters and synthesis, where

ideas are discussed, combined and narrowed down to small number of viable options.

General Approach:

1. Team composition –

a. from diverse units

b. of different agesc. with different areas of expertise

d. of different levels of seniority

e. with mixture of experiences

f. from different cultural backgrounds

2. Immersion –

a. ideally team should go thru immersion phase: general research, studying customers,

scrutinizing new technologies, assessing existing business models

3. Expanding –

a. what innovations can we imagine for each business model building block? – quantity

not quality; generate ideas rather than critique too early

4. Criteria selection –

a. what are the most important criteria for prioritizing our business model ideas?

5. Prototyping –

a. what does the complete business model for each shortlisted idea look like?

5. Design attitude: “If you freeze an idea too quickly, you fall in love with it. If you refine it too

quickly, you become attached to it and it becomes very hard to keep exploring, to keep looking

for better.” (J. Glymph, Gehry Partners)

Business Model Environment: Context, Design Drivers and Constraints

6. Developing a good understanding of your organization’s environment helps you conceive

stronger, more competitive business models.

7.

4 areas that should be mapped out in the environment:o market forces:

market issues (identifies key issues driving and transforming your market from

customer and other perspectives)

market segments (identifies the major market segments, describes their

attractiveness, and seeks to spot new segments)

needs and demands (outlines market needs and analyzes how well they are

served)




switching costs (describes elements related to customer switching business to

competitors)

revenue attractiveness (identifies elements related to revenue attractiveness

and pricing power)

o industry forces:

competitors (identifies incumbent competitors and their relative strengths)

new entrants (identifies new insurgent players and determines whether they

compete with a business model different from yours)

substitute products and services (describes potential substitutes for your offers,

including those from other markets and industries)

suppliers and other value chain actors (describes the key value chain

incumbents in your market and spots new, emerging players)

stakeholders (specifies which actors may influence your organization and

business model)

o key trends:

technology trends (identifies technology trends that could threaten your

business model-or enable to to evolve or improve)

regulatory trends (describes regulations and regulatory trends that influenceyour business model)

societal and cultural trends (identifies major societal trends that may influence

your business model)

socioeconomic trends (outlines major socioeconomic trends relevant to your

business model)

o macro-economic forces:

global conditions

capital markets

economic infrastructure (describes the economic infrastructure of the market in

which your business operates

Another Material that she presented was the: The 9 Building Blocks for a Business Model which was

taken from the same resource material:

Defining a business model – describes the rationale of how an organization creates, delivers and

captures value. The nine blocks cover the four main areas of a business: customers (clients),

offer, infrastructure and financial viability. The business model is like a blueprint for a strategy to

be implemented through organizational structures, processes and systems.

These building blocks are found in the Business Model Canvas which works best when printed

out on a large surface so groups of people can jointly can work on inputting into the canvas. It is

a hands-on tool that fosters understanding, discussion, creativity and analysis.

1. Customer Segments (CS) – this building block defines the different groups or people or

organizations an enterprise aims to reach and serve. Customer or client groups represent

separate segments if:

a. their needs require and justify a distinct offer

b. they are reached thru different distribution channels

c. they require different types of relationships




d. they have substantially different profitabilities

e. they are willing to pay for different aspects of the offer

Key questions: For whom are we creating value? Who are our most important

customers/clients?

2. Value Propositions (VP) – this building block describes the bundle of products and services that

create value for a specific Customer Segment. A VP creates value for a CS thru a distinct mix ofelements catering to that segment’s needs. Values may be quantitative (e.g., price, speed of

service) or qualitative (e.g., design, customer experience)

Key questions: What value do we deliver to the customer/client? Which one of our client’s

problems are we helping to solve? Which client needs are we satisfying?

3. Channels (CH) – this building block describes how a company/organization communicates with

and reaches its CS to deliver a VP. Five channel phases:

a. Awareness - how to raise awareness about our company’s products and services

b. Evaluation – how do we help clients evaluate our organization’s VP

c. Purchase - how do we allow clients to purchase specific products and services

d. Delivery – how do we deliver a VP to clients

e.

After sales – how do we promote post-purchase client support?4. Customer Relationships (CR) – this building block describes the type of relationships a company

establishes with specific CS.

Key questions: What type of relationship does each of our CS expect us to establish and

maintain with them? Which ones have we established? How costly are they? How are they

integrated with the rest of our business model?

5. Revenue Streams (RS) – this building block represents the cash a company generates from each

CS (costs must be subtracted from revenues to create earnings).

Key questions: For what value are our clients really willing to pay? For what do they currently

pay? How are they currently paying? How would they prefer to pay? How much does each RS

contribute to overall revenues?

6. Key Resources (KR) – this building block describes the most important assets required to make abusiness model work. KR can be physical, financial, intellectual or human.

Key questions: What Key Resources do our VP require? Our Distribution Channels? Customer

Relationships? Revenue Streams?

7. Key Activities (KA) – this building block describes the most important things a company must do

to make its business model work.

Key questions: What Key Activities do our VP require? Our Distribution Channels? Customer

Relationships? Revenue Streams?

8. Key Partnerships (KP) – this building block describes the network of suppliers and partners that

make the business model work. We can distinguish four different types of partnerships:

a. Strategic alliances between non competitors

b. Competition: strategic partnerships between competitors

c. Joint ventures to develop new businesses

d. Buyer-supplier relationships to assure reliable supplies

Key questions: Who are our KPs? Who are our key suppliers? Which KR are we acquiring from

partners? Which KA do partners perform?

9. Cost Structure (CS) – this building block describes all costs incurred to operate a business model.




Key questions: What are the most important costs inherent in our business model? Which KRs

are most expensive? Which KAs are most expensive?

After Dr Tina presented her input on the proposed business model as basis for initial discussions and

then will follow through another round of revalidation using the same model so as further diversify and

clarify and allow other sources of information to further define the niche of the institute, identifying thesources, defining social rural leader, enriching programs, envision a graduate of the institute since this

will help define modules, programs, training, identify qualities of the 21st

century of SEARSOLIN.

INPUT on South-East Asia Rural Leadership Trends

Tony Quizon started to define the geographic added that it is important to define first the business

model rather than jumping into the curricula offerings, it is important to define first to define who the

social rural leader is as foundation of any discussion on the workshop.

His presentation was entilted, Some perspectives on Rural Developmentm in the South East Asia context

and the task of building new leadership. He started by providing the basic characteristic of SoutheastAsia in three key elements:

1. High Biodiversity. 11 countries of Southeast Asia is composed of main lands and islands, with

flora & fauna diversity in a tropical setting and is considered second largest in the world in

rainforest.

2. High ethnic and cultural diversity, that 40% of its population are Muslim, and the rest are

Buddhists, Christians, Hindus and Animists, is one of the most ethnically diverse regions, highest

Indigenous Peoples populations and has layers of identity and historical roots.

3. Disaster and risk areas; severity of Climate Change impacts. SEA is situated at a tropical

rainbelt and tectonic plates with Vietnam cited as one of the rising new examples of ClimateChange Adaptation and risk reduction strategies.

He also pointed out that colonization plays a very vital role in the rich historical background of

Southeast Asia which according to him has three unifying features, namely: the dominance of European

maritime power, imposition of commercial economy based on international trade; and total domination

in last 100 years, 1850s-1950s in tune with the industrial revolution in Europe.

He also noted that the three periods of European colonization were vital to Southeast Asia’s historical

evolution, as follows: a. the age of expansion, 1498 to 1750, b. the age of conquest, 1750-1858, and the

c. the age of empire, 1858 to 1914. He added that independent states have flourished only after 1950s

which was rather consequential to the degree at which these states were totally independent andsovereign in orientation and that the structural adjustments and reforms have begun on in the 1980s

and concerns and challenges of adapting to the trends of globalization was revolutionized in the 1990s

and have since then changed the socio-economic-political-cultural and environmental paradigms and

governance of the Southeast Asian countries.




Another unique trend in Southeast Asia, he noted was its high economic growth with GDP growth in the

ASEAN six (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam) in 2010 at 7.6% and is

expected to reach an average of 5.6% in 2012-2016 with China as main trading partners of ASEAN: USD

178B in 2009 and an Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) as main driver of its economy with USD 74B in FDIs

in 2010. (Source: WEF website)

While all is well with Southeast Asia, he also presented unique challenges of transition countries, with

the following characteristics: opening market, but not of political space noting human rights violations,

growing restrictions. He cites Cambodia as an example stating of the need to secure permits to enter

into communities to do social development work. Ethnic conflict among communities are also a

challenge as well as massive landgrabs and resource extractions as a result of the foreign direct

investment activities and the prevailing weak institutions in addressing good governance issues.

He presented the following data to

illustrate his claims:







He then asserted that to configure the term “rural” was a contribution to the following elements,

namely:

1. That it is a resource-based economies where people’s livelihoods are primarily in agriculture,

although in some areas the economu may be based on mining, forestry or tourism;

2. Provider of food, industrial crops, timber, minerals and environmental services;3. Link to culture and history as its basic roots; and

4. Rural livelihood in nature.

He cited Robert Chambers as basis of defining the strategy for rural development, saying:

Rural Development is a strategy to enable a specific group of people, poor rural

women and men, to gain for themselves and their children more of what they

want and need… It involves helping the poorest among those who seek a

livelihood in the rural areas to demand and control more of the benefits of rural

development… The group includes small scale farmers, tenants, and the

landless.

The reality of rural poverty is a major concern to contend with according to him, since, he asserts that

the uneven and non-inclusive development has been observed in the existing economies, facilities and

services are commonly inadequately, setting the past policies of using agriculture to service has been

insufficiently characterized. And in the case of the Philippines, he said that “ chronic poverty among

farmers and fisher folks are a given reality not to mention the needs of our indigenous peoples and that

most are along poverty line, so the focus now, he said that is on “risk and vulnerability’, livelihood rights

mapping, etc. noteworthy to mention in his discussion is the poverty incidence being highest among

fishermen and farmers at 414 percent and 36.7 percent in 2009, the poverty incidence was pegged at

26.5 percent according to the data from NSCB, 2009/ Manila Times, 06/30/13 that he presented.

He then transported his discussion to a global understanding of the world population in these

illustrations:










He then proposed the following assertions on the meaning and connotation of the social context of an

institute as well as providing the scope of challenging the foundations of an institution that is oriented

to social development context as follows:

He ended his presentation by identifying the positive nature of SEARSOLIN being in Mindanao, and in

the Philippine context asserting: the comparative advantage of the English proficiency among local,

open-learning environment of an academic institutions, existing areas of actual field experience and has

built local champions of doing rural social leadership, grounded understanding and awareness of the

Southeast Asia context, existing linkages and accessibility of funds and grants, challenge of doing land

and resource reforms and can take a more substantial engagement of the realities of out-migration.

Workshop on: Vision-Mission Goal Re-visit

Discussion on the present Vision-Mission-Goal statement of SEARSOLIN as well as other concerns and

issues were raised. The need to look at SEARSOLIN timeline: 1964-2012 is crucial in terms of providing

a holistic understanding for the planning exercise. Main points of the discussion were:

1. Linkages:

Vision-Mission Statement

SEARSOLIN is a Catholic, Jesuit, Filipino and an Asian Leadership Institute that

aspires for a just social order, dedicated to the holistic formation of leaders to

work for social development in the context of diversity and tradition of

developing countries.




o Link with Xavier University Vision has to be re-evaluated

o Review “Catholic”, “Jesuit” in its vision-mission statement

o Question of” Can “Catholic, Jesuit, Filipino” be removed in the Vision-Mission

statement (Is this covered by holistic formation?)

2. To focus on mission part to make it more specific to SEARSOLIN

3. Define Goals and Objectives

o Premier Asian Leadership Institute – can this be part of the Mission Statement

Need to define competitive advantage

4. Change “tradition” (“Culture”?)

5. Existing vision can be decoded

o Who are we?

o What is the vision? (Considering the context of the “Just social order” component of

the present V-M-G statement.)

o Mission – develop leaders

o Context of what is being addressed--diversity

6. Emphasize “diversity”

7. Tradition – “empowerment”?

8. Vision (What we want): Premier Asian Institute

9. Mission: Form leaders

10. Does Social Development cover “everything”?

11. Empowerment? Transformation? Change? Towards becoming an Institute that “learns”

As proposed and discussed, the re-formulated Vision-Mission Statement of SEARSOLIN states:

Vision-Mission Statement

SEARSOLIN is the Premier Asian Leadership Institute that aspires for social

justice, dedicated to the holistic formation of leaders helping to empower the

poor for social development in the context of diversity and cultures of

developing countries.




Business Model Exercise

Given the various points of discussions presented above, Dr Liamzon, then asked the committee to go

through the exercise using the proposed matrix on The 9 Building Blocks for a Business Model:

Key Activities (KA) Fieldwork

Apprenticeship

Training seminars

Modular seminars

Visits and exposures

Hands on exercises

Model-building

Lectures

Workshops

Key Partners (KP) Funding Agencies

Field Practitioners

Academic Faculty

Government Agencies

NGOs networks and affilitiates

Friends of Fr Masterson

Church-based funding institutions

Scholarships

Paying students

Regional networks Key Resources (KR) Partners

Funders

Building and Land

Training facilities

Farm for sustainable agriculture

Resource personsAlumni associations

Reputation

Xavier University

XU College of Agriculture Cost Structure (CS) Travel & Visa Cost

Board and lodging of the students

Security and language translations

Maintenance cost (staff)

Tuition and fees

Transportation

Tuition to pay for resource

Customer relationships

(CR)

Cura personalis

Personalized care and attentionKeeping “informal ties with graduates”

Professional delivery of services

Cut-off after session after training

“Organized pleasure”

They expect continued support

Customer Segments (CS) Government staff – development agencies

Church-based

Development students

NGO / Civil Society Workers




Development Workers

Academe

Government

Church

Community leaders in Southeast Asia

Filipino Leaders

Southeast Asian Leaders

Value Proposition (VP) Value formation through exposure, reflection, engagement

Community life through sharing and common activities

Models for rural trainings

Training on 7 modules

DAP implementation

Modularized training theory / practicum

Multi-disciplinary

Social/value formation

Training-lectures-exposures

6-month training program

Skills development

Innovative strategies

Religious and cultural tolerance

Certificate courses

Diploma courses

Channels (CH) Residential Training

Church-based organizations

Informal networks

Best practices

In-country trainings and conferences

Alumni

Partners

Communications through alumni associations

Website

Facebook

EmailsWord of mouth

Referrals by alumni

Network of funders

Communication through the partner organizations

Follow-ip through visits

Publication of newsletter Revenue Streams (RS) Sale of Knowledge Products like books, photocopying services

Income from use of facilties

Overhead for project implementation management

Tuition (scholarships)

Government – CDA, CDF

Donor-driven (Scholarships)

Board and Lodging including walk-ins Funding agencies

Endowment Fund

Donations from Alumni

Fr Masterson Fund

Individual funding




Day 2:

Preliminaries

The second day started with a prayer and followed by a recap highlighting the significant

accomplishments of the first day of workshop. Highlights include:

1. Thorough discussion and presentation of SEARSOLIN’s accomplishments, impact assessment of

its years of existence on program implementation, formation value to its graduates, funding

institutions inputs and recommendation, among other significant information provided by

Rachel Polestico;

2. Greater perspective on the Asian Rural Leadership paradigm presented by Tony Quizon gave a

fresh breath of what it means to do social development work vis-à-vis the macro and micro

challenges of Southeast Asia in terms of its socio-economic-historical-cultural-environmental-

governmental-political landscape of the present times;

3. Leveling-off of process and workshop flow given the rich materials of the proposed

organizational development framework to be used in the workshop particularly using the

business model generation shared by the two resources persons in the achievement of the

workshop objectives; and

4. Revisited the existing Vision-Mission statement of SEARSOLIN and conscientiously retraced its

origins, foundations, reasons for existence and related this to the changing landscape and signs

of the diversity of factors and challenges for a more meaningful conduct of social development

in this part of the world;

5. Learning exercises of in aid of undergoing the 9 building blocks of business model which has

further clarified the existing Key Activities, Key Partners, Key Resources, Cost Structure, Cost

relationships, Customer Segments, Value Propositions, Channels, Revenue Streams of

SEARSOLIN as basis of tracing a new road map for its future engagements.

The first day of workshop was a journey of exploring the frontiers of SEARSOLIN’s pathways of

engagements that it be meaningful and will play a significant role in making a difference of its continued

existence while still grounded on its roots and reasons for becoming Asia’s premier rural social

development institute.

B. Workshop on trend analysis

The facilitator presented the importance of identifying the:

1. Key Trends: Regulatory, technology, societal and cultural and socio-economic trendsrelevant so as to provide foresight of internal and external challenges that may influence the

organizational direction of the institute;

2. Market forces: Market segments, needs and demands, market issues, switching costs,

revenue attractiveness;

3. Industry forces: suyppliers and other value chain actors, stakeholders, competitors, new

entrants (insurgents) substitute products and services; and




4. Macro-Economic Forces: Economic infrastructure, commodities and other resources, capital

markets, and global market conditions.

The result of this exercise is shown below:

Trends (KEY TRENDS: Technologies, Regulations, Culture/Religion

- Still: Context, Experience,

Reflection, Action and

Evaluation (Ignatian

Pedagogical Paradigm – IPP)

- Under the Social Development

Framework

- Output-based/Development

Action Plan. Practicum)

Outcomes

- Empowered Citizens

- Rising Middle Class- Field Practitioners

- MA Degree

- Short Courses

- Ladderized Course

- Research-based engagements

-

- Public-Private

Partnership

- Corporate Investment

on Human Capital

- Emergence of

Alternative Mode of

Learning

- Development work or

community building

initiatives

- Good governance anddecentralization

- Collaborative learning

- Executive program

- Information and

Communication

Technology

- Multidisciplinary

- Interdisciplinary

- Dialogical input

practicum

- Gendermainstreaming

- Precision agriculture

- GIS Application

- Governance as

platform of

engagement

- Multi-Media

- Customized courses

- Open university

- Tailor-fit programs to address

industry-based employment

needs and time-frame of study

specific to their levels and posts in

the organization

Competitors / Comparators?

“INDUSTRY FORCES” Competitors, Stakeholders, Others

- Government Training Centers and Institutes

Balay Mindanao

o Courses: Regional and International

Levels

o Education and Training

o Constituency Building

o Internship and Exchange

o Sustainable Integrated area

development

o Conflict transformation

o Peace building

ATI

Xavier University

SAIDI

IIRR

COADY

PPI

Academe: Ateneo School of Governance

XU RSO Units

Asian Institute of Management

Fundacio




Asian Social Institute – Manila

International diploma for Community

Organizing Workers

MA and Undergrad Courses in SOcialk

Work

Research: Principles, Methods andApplication

Project Planning and Development

Integrity of Creation workshops

Mindanao Peace Building Institute

Education and Training

Research and Documentation

Networking

Government mandated training /

workshops

Development academies

Mindanao Rural Baptist Center(Bansalam)

Climate Change Academy (Albay)

Center for Development Innovations –

Wageningen University

CARD Institute

MASSPECC

NGO: PRRM, Canaan

UP’s Outreach Unit

World Bank Institute

Bogor University

Chiangmai University

European University Scholarship Programs

Short-term Leadership Courses

Phildrra

Challenges:- Will we compete or cooperate?

- There is a need to map-out similar Institutes, Courses in Mindanao

- Map-out XU Offerings to check overlaps

- Compare Institution courses, donors, cost

Who is the Market?

“Market Potentials and Market Forces”

- Sectoral leaders

- Educators for development

- Focus in Asia and Other Developing nations

- Development workers (NGOs, CSOs)

- Graduate Students (specialized courses or

practicum based)

- Urban/Town Planners

- Public Sector (Local and National)

- Agents of change

- Movers / innovators / transformers

- Government Staff

- Religious Persons

- Graduate Students

- Government Offices – CSO: Policy Makers

- GO - NGO: Development Workers

- Government Bureaucrats

- Field practitioners who need retread, degree

- Youth leaders (SBs)

- Media Practitioners

- Intellectual ACtivitists

- Institutional partnernships as learning-skill

training provider




- Lay Pastoral Leaders

- Famers

- Fisher folks

- Researchers working on an issue or theme

Development Context

‘Macro-Development Forces” (Context in which you operate)

- Land and Resource Conflicts

- Bio-diversity

- Climate change

- Management leadership institutes

- Disasters

- Agricultural transformation

- Supermarkets (Food Industry)

- Funder-driven “development programs and

projects”

- Development workers especially from

transition countries

- Rise of Modern Markets- Multi-Stakeholders Partnerships

- Green technology

- Emergent economies

- Inclusive growth

- Increased participation of CSOs, private

groups in affairs of the state: Social

Accountability

- Religion domination and conversion

- Brain gain / drain

- Back 2 back “Small is Beautiful”.

- Transition Countries Issues

- Globalization (Free Trades)

- The quest for meaning (in the urban jungle)

- Rights-based approaches

- Carrying capacity (footprint, hand print)

- Resource Management (energy, basic needs)

- Urbanization

- Food security and volatility

- Growth of regional trade and Foreign Direct

Investments

- Urbanization with a particular stress on

migration- Cultural integration

- Mindanao peace: a security context

- ASEAB / AFTA

- BOOMING China

- Pease and development thru livelihoods

promotion

- Indigenous Peoples inclusion

- Internally displaced persons in poor areas in

Mindanao

- Growing gap between the rich and poor

Learning points:

1. The exercise identified key issues driving and transforming SEARSOLIN market from

customer and offer perspectives and diversity into the uniqueness of its foundations;

2. It also identified the major market segments, describes the attractiveness of its unique

offerings through its value propositions and wealth of experiences of doing social

development work and most important sought its spot in possible venture to the new

segments offered in the market place at large;

3. Identifying SEARSOLIN’s the needs of demands through the exercise as well outlines market

needs and analyzes how well they can be served and tapped given the existing and

unexplored resources of the institute given its long years of doing social development work;

and

4. Identified elements related to revenue attractiveness and pricing power to address self-

sustainability and accountability issues.




Exercise on Identifying SEARSOLIN’s Niche

The present Vision has been incorporated in the present exercise. The facilitator stressed that at this

part of the workshop is aimed at identifying SEARSOLIN’s goals and objectives as basis for further

discussion. Market forces analysis is crucial since determining will provide better understanding not only

of the present trends of doing social rural leadership trainings and programs offering rather provide theinstitute and its stakeholder of its comparative advantage and harness further its potentials and areas of

growth and not simply adjust to any given situations unprepared, he added.

Proposed

Reformulated

V-M

Goals Objectives Value Propositions

“Products/Services” (as the Premier Rural

Development Training Institute

in Asia)

Customer

Segments

SEARSOLIN is

the PremierAsian

Leadership

Institute that

aspires for

social justice,

dedicated to

the holistic

formation of

leaders helping

to empower

the poor for

social

development

in the context

of diversity and

cultures of

developing

countries.

Develop leaders

with valuesBe the Center of

Excellence /

Premier Institute

Link with

universities/instit

ute with Asian

development

realities

(outreach /

research)

Empowerment

Competencies Values/formatio

n

transformation

Research

Advocacy Monitoring and

Evaluation

Ladderized

Programs

Core training

Programs (SLP_

MA Program

Implementing

DAP as

“SEARSOLIN

102” Diploma

Courses

Customized

Trainings

In-Country training

Alumni

Model Building

Philippines:

DevelopmentWorkers:

Church, CSR,

NGOs

Government

Organizational

Development

and Enterprise

Migrants

Graduate

Students

(DevelopmentStudies)

Transition

Counties of

ASEAN where

Rural

Development

Leaders may be

more needed: Go

where the

greater need

(and funding)

is.”:

Myanmar

Cambodia

Laos

Timor Leste

Africa

Pacific




Main Concerns Rose:

ii. Validation questionnaire for the stakeholders will cover Southeast Asia. Target clients of the

survey are alumni and partners of the institute.

iii. Given the proposed new themes, possibility of new funding partners can be explored.

Key Activities Key Partners Revenue Stream

Knowledge

Management

: Case

Studies

Enhancecultural

sensitivity

(for

faculty/work

ers)

Strengthen

and expand

Curriculum

development

and updating

Joint training

on key topics

Joint

Trainings /

Research

Other

resources

and income

mobilization

activities

Partner with other agencies

Centers of innovations and other

universities in Southeast Asia

Other Resource Persons

Institutional Partnerships

Tuition and other fees

Modules:

- Participatory Organizational and Project Management- Sustainable Agriculture

- Project Monitoring and Evaluation

- Entrepreneurship and Cooperatives

- Formulation of Development Action Plan (DAP)

- Link farmers to Value Chain

- Feasibility Study Making (XU College of Agriculture)

- Environment (Marine Engineering)

- Governance and Peace

- Disaster-Risk Reduction

- Coordinating Unit for Advocacies

Research, Grants, Press, College-based Research and Social Outreach Units




iv. The need to be accredited or bidding for projects and grants are areas that the institute must

learn and explore.

v. An observation was made that on programs and vision statements, emphasis was more on

environment which has become the base of the present proposed engagements. This is due to

the need to further incorporate the discussion on environment as an over-arching theme of the

development agenda.

vi. Three concepts emerge that can substantiate the desired formation orientation of a SEARSOLIN

graduate:

1. World changer through

2. Social Entrepreneurship which is not just limited to a task but in view of social

responsibility manifesting the graduate’s vital role as

3. Social leader for development.

Synthesis of Day 2 - Workshop

The second day of the workshop ended with a prayer with a spirit of consolation brought about by the

collaborative spirit and synergy among participants in coming up with a clearer direction and defined

areas of growth as well as enhancing its present dynamism towards a more responsive and dynamic

institute in the coming years.

Day 3:

Preliminaries

The workshop started with a reflection points from Mary Stewart and followed by a recap presented by

the facilitator highlighting the following points:

1. For SEARSOLIN to be competitive in the 21st

century leadership institute, it has to make

sense of today’s environmental challenges as it might find itself to be outdated or even

obsolete for the demands prescribe in the market today;

2. That improving its understanding about the future is not only necessary but is an imperativegiven the complexities, uncertainties, and potential disruptions inherent in the evolving

business environment;

3. Thus the exercise of analyzing its environmental landscape and its niche has provided

significant direction of its future as assumptions about how market forces, industry forces,

key trends, and macroeconomic forces unfold has provided the design space to develop

potential business model options or prototypes for the future; and

Social

Entrepreneur

World

changer

Social

Leader




4. The task of the committee is to define the role of business model scenarios to forecast

possibilities and make them happen.

The third day is meant to provide the continued learning space to close certain gaps in the

arrangements of structures where SEARSOLIN can effective manifest its mandate, vision, and sense of

mission.

Exercise on Developing Core Programs

The committee members were asked to brainstorm on the core program offerings and the output are as

follows:

Course Thematic Content Values Content Market Segment

Local Governance - Campaign and

Electoral

Management

- Policy

Formulation

- Greater Public

Value

- Effective

Leadership and

Management

- ABCD

- Community

Organizing

- Linking Disaster

and Resiliency

- MDGs- Leadership

- Environment,

Sustaianable

Development

- Risk-Sensitive

Land Use Planning

- Gender Women

Participation

- Environmental

Accounting

-

Disaster RiskManagement,

Climate Change

- Local

Development

Planning

- Local Economic

Development

- Integrity

- Transparency

- Accountability

- Gratitude and Love

- “Seeing God in all

things”

- Participation

- Wide Perspectives

- Open-mindedness

- “the larger scheme of

things” (stars versus

the constellations)

- Local government leaders

from other countries

- Local government officials

- Local bureaucracy

- Local executives and

Government Workers

- CSOs (NGOs, Academe)

- Devolved National

Government Agencies

- NGO Workers

- Progressive LGUs in

Southeast Asian Countires

- Graduate Student and

Faculty




- Systems Thinking

- Innovation

management

Social

Entrepreneurship

- Value chain

development

- Product

assessment

- Market feasibility

study

- Business planning

- Cooperativism

- Production

management

- Financial

management

- Marketing

management

- Microfinance- Business policies

- Organizing

- What is social

entrepreneurship?

- Who is a social

entrepreneur?

- Financial literacy

- Social

responsibility

- Business models

- Value chain- ABCD

- Product

development

- Market analysis

- Human dignity

- Dignity of labor

- Persistence and

perseverance

- Our of the box thinking

- Flexibility

- Thrift, savings

- Farmer empowerment

- Synergy

- Chain cooperation

- Negotiation

- Ethics

- ECO Empowerment

- Collective Action

- Trust- Accountability

- Palabra de Honor

- Product Quality

Consciousness

- Innovation/Creativity

- Continuing Research

- Innovativeness

- Farmers and farm laborers

- NGO staff

- Government Staff

- Farmer Leaders

- Returning OFWs

- CSR Units

Resource Rights

and Governance

- Community Based

Risk Management;

Climate Change

Adaptation

Models

- Scenario

Projections

- CCA/DRR

- Systems thinking

- Globalization

- Peace as

development:

participation,

structure,

- Social equity

- Resource conservation

“Co-creation”

- Connectivity with

nature/environment

- Respect for IPs

- Reconciliation with

creation

- Everyone as caretakers

and stakeholders of

resources

- Corporate Social

Responsibility personnel

- Agricultural corporations

- Government: LGUs and Line

Agencies

- Indigenous leaders




enabling

environment, etc

- Gender women

rights

- Mediation of

resource conflicts

- Natural cycling

(renewal,

extractions,

conservation)

- Ecosystems-based

landscape

adaptation

- MDGs

- Mediation

(boundary

disputes, culture

difference, etc)- Community

mapping systems

- IPRA as “Model”

- Rights and

entitlements

- Asset Reform

- Sustainable

resource

management

- Food Security(Sustainable

Agriculture)

- Food productionskills

- IPM

- Smallholder

agriculture

- Natural farming

system

- Agro forestry

- Food security as

human security

- Laws and

protocols

- Value-chain for

sustainable

agriculture

products

- Producers and

consumers linkage

- Tenurial rights

- Agricultural

- Give us this day ourdaily bread

- Preferential option for

the poor

- Faith (Food Always In

The Home)

- Human development

principles

- Total human

development

- Simplicity: not taking

more than what needs

and valuing of

resources




investments

- Organizing

- Sustainable

farming systems

- Value adding

- Access

Project

Management,

Monitoring and

Evaluation (tools

and skills)

Partnership,

Networking

- Guidelines on

data gathering

and analysis

- GIS, IT Tools

- Project proposal

development

- Budget

preparation and

monitoring

- Strategic planning

- Budgeting

- Scoreboard- Leadersip training

- Institutional

learning

- Appreciative

inquiry

- Farming models

- What development are

we working for?

- Research / project

ethics

- Transformational

leadership

Learning Point:

This exercise has facilitated an invigorated sense of identifying its program offerings to bettersuit the demands of the existing market but also acknowledge its rich networks and linkages that can

help the institute re-orient itself towards its new vision and mission.

Exercise on Arrangements and Structural Orientation within Xavier University and composite units:

Context: The present set-up of SEARSOLIN has been defined, and that it is under Xavier Science

Foundation. XSF is not really part of Xavier University in terms of structure and as an institute but it’s

directly under the president. Its only legal connection with Xavier University is because of its connection

with the College of Agriculture. The challenge now is how should it be set up any where?

The facilitator then discussed the difference between institution of replacement and institution of

relationships. In terms of programs offerings for example, should it be included as part of the diploma

course? Another concern that emerged is what part of the program offerings should be under the

graduate school and which department should it be linked?




Dean Ravanera: SEARSOLIN is related to Xavier Unviersity since it is with the College of Agrilcture. It is its

home-base, he said. That also reflectes in the programs that had been offered. It has opened up and

included other colleges as the need arises. Administratively, SEARSOLIN is linked to the College of

Agriculture but it’s technically under Xavier Science Foudnation. So if there are contracts and

memorandums to be entered into, the Xavier Science Foundation will sign. But the financial sides: XSF

functions as financial conduit. Whether the funds will be transferred to the university, that’s something

we will answer in the next workshop. What we can discuss now is AFTER. It could be under graduate

school but given the varied themes that is being proposed now, then this is what should be discussed

now.

Dr Quiaoit made a comment saying that the proposed mechanism will work but not necessarily under

the graduate program.

The facilitator then challenge the committee members to see how the institute is operationalized before

relationships are to be discussed and decided on. He cites as an example research and advocacy, he

asks if the committee members envision a separate advocacy unit within the framework or not?, Is it a

specialized function?, he quips. He stressed that the difference between SEARSOLIN from now on: in a

way is that it is an outreach—an extension within an extension. He said that SEARSOLIN should be

treated as a separate institute. The question now he posed is under whose guidance is it then and what

about staffing concerns?

Dr Quaioit responded that SEARSOLIN must have its own set of staff.

Fr Rene responded that at present, the staff is composed of the following: the deputy director,

secretary, trainee, librarian, housekeeping, kitchen, support service. His main concern is how to redefine

even the structure into the organization?

The facilitator presented a scenario that if we will put flesh on this; we have to have a person who can

deal with a team to push them. Say, if there’s a partnership, there has to be a core who will relate to the

partner. We’re looking into a group of skeletal.

Fr Rene proposed by saying that the skeletal might be composed of: one person/coordinator per theme,

admin, and knowledge manager which includes the library, finance, facilities manager,

A concern was raised by the facilitator on what might happen is that there will be a coordinator per

module. But somebody has to see the entire module. Considering also the number if you’re talking

about many people.

Fr Rene responded that it might be done through one core per theme, but there are customized training

per group. So per each team there, there is really a coordinator: more of the content and expert (in

house or outsource or partnered), training specialist: facilitator in terms of admin and logistics

(permanent).

Ms de la Rita made a comment that in a project, there should be project coordinator, admin asst,

secretary and a cohort of say 30 people to make it viable.




Fr Rene stressed some considerations saying that the idea right now is to integrate SEARSOLIN to the

university. This idea will strengthen the academic offerings of the university. One basic assumption on

this is that programs and course offerings must be anchored in the university. Experts from the

university must be tapped for its program and course implementation and offerings so in the process

also strengthen the university’s course offerings as well.

The facilitator affirmed the proposal saying that given the thematic orientation of the proposed program

offerings, it might be a good strategy that the lead thematic specialist should come from the university.

Fr Rene said in response that it’s not the RSO which comes in to set the direction of how SEARSOLIN

should go as an institution in terms of its program and RSO’s thematic areas.

The facilitator asked for clarification whether is this oversight function or an operational function? He

cites an example on hiring of staff.

Fr Rene replied through a clarificatory question: since SEARSOLIN is not under the university, the

Executive Director is the one who should set the directions? One clamor that is going to be put is thecurriculum aspect in terms of how it is going to be run.

Dean Ravanera said that thedirector should be the one responsible but in terms of content, the

collegiate.

Dr Quaioit added that the director will have a say on matters pertaining to operations, programs

offerings, etc byt there should be a technical team of experts who will look into matters with the

director for guidance.

Dr Yasay said that the committee can recommend tot eh President that somewhat like a Quality

Management Committee for SEARSOLIN can be formed to address this concern.

Dr Quiait followed up a question saying, “can the oversight already be the committee of SEARSOLIN?”

The facilitator said that part of the oversight committee’s task is to look into the course, thematic

content, values content, market segment will be the ones to determine the number of hours, grade, etc

and that the director, the oversight committee, acting on behalf of the president and then the training

coordinators for: administration, Logistic and Finance can be formed.



VP RSO

DIRECTOR

RESEARCH/ADVOCACY/ KM

PROGRAMMANAGER

THEMATICSPECIALIST

THEMATICSPEACIALIST

UNIVERSITY UNIT

THEMATICSPECIALIST

THEMATICSPECIALIST

THEMATICSPECIALIST

M & E MARKETING

The proposed SEARSOLIN Organizational Structure:

The committee was also asked to draw its proposed cost list as follows:

Meeting Rooms

Case/Seminar Rooms

Conference Room

Wifi

Generator

Non-handicapping

Environment

Elevators

Ecumenical Rooms

Dining Halls

Library

Rooms with individual

CRs

2 types of rooms:

short term

long term

Dormitories

Recreation room/Fitness

room

Pantry per floor

Computer room

Computers

Admin Offices

Kiosks

Breakout/workshop

rooms for breakout

sessions

Secretariat room

Spacious lounge

Dirty kitchen (outdoor)

Entertainment Room

with musical instruments

Play room

Parking space (redesign)

Synthesis

The third day of the workshop in a way closed the process of re-inventing SEARSOLIN through

the various workshop objectives and even those that have not been covered and explored were

instruments of further relegating the dynamism and bright future ahead of the institute as contained in

h d

Documents

Searsolin Final Report - Draft