Table 2.

Differences in perspectives among actors, by phase and consequences

(a) Among all key actors
Phase	Difference		Consequences
Start-up	Location of coordinating health research capacity strengthening within government versus outside and within health versus science & technology versus education		Jockeying for location, delays in directorship
Implementation	Grant calls and processes improved over time versus remained non-transparent and halting in process		Frustrations and delays in implementation
Implementation	Ethics review committees functioning and providing independent review versus compromised with conflicted members and acting as resource generator for institutions		Resentments and labelling of committees as obstacles
(b)Among subsets of actors
Phase	Differences	Actors concerned	Consequences
Start-up, reorganization and implementation	National politics versus international funder decision-making control	Funders, research governors and users	Stalemates on approvals
Start-up, reorganization	Fiscal mismanagement versus civil service obstacles versus consultants not keeping an eye on the ball	Research producers – institutions, researchers, trainees	Delays in funding flows
Implementation	Extended involvement of other institutions in networks versus competition dominated by those already capable	Research producers – institutions, researchers	Some institutions are keen but not funded, areas remain underdeveloped, broader research culture slower to develop
Implementation	Institutional levies on awards and grants unfair disincentive versus need to fund research management within institutions which primarily rely on student teaching income	Research producers – institutions, researchers	Some researchers take funds to organizations outside academy
Implementation	Researchers not performing sufficient mentorship and training roles versus hard to find time for research with existing teaching loads	Research producers – institutions, trainees	Interns and trainees not receiving adequate mentorship