|
Meta-evaluation of the Performance Evaluation System of Public Research Institutes in Korea
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Chan Goo Yi, Pukyong National University, changoo@pknu.ac.kr
|
| Jang Jae Lee, Korea Institute of Science and Technology Evaluation and Planning, jjlee@kistep.re.kr
|
| Yong Soo Hwang, Science and Technology Policy Institute, yshwang@stepi.re.kr
|
| Abstract:
The Korean government has evaluated research institutes of science and technology sector since 1999, in order to improve the productivity of R&D activities and upgrade the management system. In 2005, it has also adopted the performance evaluation system of research institutes in context of worldwide trends in emphasizing the entire performances of the whole policy process not output or outcome in certain policy stages.
Meanwhile, there have been arguments among various stake-holders, including the CEOs, researchers and evaluation panels, whether the evaluation of research institutes could contribute the enhancement of quality of R&D results as well as the development of internal management system. For this reason, this work firstly aims to meta-evaluate the rationality of current evaluation system and the appropriateness of operational process of the system. Then, it will discuss policy alternatives for developments of the system itself and its implementation in accordance with the initial policy objectives.
|
|
Integrating Evaluation With Business Process Modeling for Increased Efficiency and Faster Results in HIV/AIDS Clinical Trials Research
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Jonathan Kagan, National Institutes of Health, jkagan@niaid.nih.gov
|
| William Trochim, Cornell University, wmt1@cornell.edu
|
| Abstract:
In evaluating NIH's HIV/AIDS clinical trials networks, increasing efficiency and shortening time lines for protocol development emerge as priorities across stakeholders (e.g. investigators, community, NIH). This report describes research aimed at understanding the factors contributing to lengthy clinical trial development, with an eye towards streamlining the process overall, especially minimizing aspects that do not substantially improve scientific quality or human subject protection. Our approach integrates elements of business process modeling with evaluation of time-based events across a standardized protocol life cycle paradigm, including discrete statuses, milestones and events. Process evaluations of a large set of protocols (within and across networks) inform both an in-depth understanding of the 'as is' state, and the identification of 'outliers' (rapid or delayed), and their correlating factors. With its utilization evaluation focus, this work will identify opportunities for policy and process improvement, with the goal to hasten the discovery of better therapeutic and preventive interventions for HIV/AIDS.
|
|
Using Cross-case Study Analysis to Maximize the Use of an Evaluation of a Research Funding Program
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Natalie Froese, RA Malatest & Associates Ltd, n.froese@malatest.com
|
| Nicole Michaud, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, nicole.michaud@sshrc-crsh.gc.ca
|
| Rob Malatest, RA Malatest & Associates Ltd, r.malatest@malatest.com
|
| Suzanne Bélanger, RA Malatest & Associates Ltd, s.belanger@malatest.com
|
| Abstract:
As part of the Government of Canada's plan to strengthen education, research and innovation,$100M was awarded to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council in 2000 to establish the Initiative on the New Economy (INE). A multi-phased, summative evaluation was designed to provide evidence on the success of the INE as well as on effectiveness and efficiency as a potential model for other SSHRC investments. Given the interest regarding the 'real time' value of evaluation findings, focus has been set on examining the results of knowledge transfer, student training and partnerships. Case studies were undertaken,using an innovative cross-case (comparative) analytical approach to allow for rich and in-depth data on these three dimensions than would be produced through survey data. This paper highlights the innovative and successful approach used to maximize the value of evaluation findings for evidence-based decision-making and learning opportunities on current policies and program funding initiatives.
|
| | |