|
Stakeholder Involvement and the Choice of Science and Technology Policy Outcome Evaluation Methods
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Shan-Shan Li, Science & Technology Policy Research and Information Center, ssli@mail.stpi.org.tw
|
| Ling-Chu Lee, Science & Technology Policy Research and Information Center, lclee@mail.stpi.org.tw
|
| Wen-Chi Hung, Science & Technology Policy Research and Information Center, wchung@mail.stpi.org.tw
|
| Kai-Lin Chi, Science & Technology Policy Research and Information Center, klchi@mail.stpi.org.tw
|
| Chia-Hao Hsu, Science & Technology Policy Research and Information Center, chiahao@mail.stpi.org.tw
|
| Abstract:
This paper aims to develop the linkage between stakeholder involvement and science & technology (S&T) policy outcome evaluation methods so as to allow adoption of suitable methods for responding to stakeholders' interests and concerns. The paper adopts the conceptual framework of impacts of publicly funded S&T programs which involves four phases: allocation of public funds, outputs and outcomes of S&T communities, cooperation of research communities, and impact of research utilization. Stakeholders' concerns on various issues and impacts in phrases of publicly funded S&T programs are discussed first from the requirements (demand-side) of publicly funded executors (S&T executive institutions, cooperative institutions, the end-users utilizing outputs, etc.), and concerns (supply-side) from publicly funding sponsors (funders, etc.). Then, based on their individual unique characteristics, different S&T policy outcome evaluation methods are used to assess different stakeholders' issues. In this manner, stakeholders'interests exert influences on the choice of S&T policy outcome evaluation methods.
|
|
Socioeconomic Effects and Meta Evaluation of Tekes Programs
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Jari Hyvarinen, Tekes, Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation, jari.hyvarinen@tekes.fi
|
| Abstract:
A goal of my paper is to determine meta evaluation results of Tekes programss in Finland in order to describe those socioeconomic effects that are defined in Tekes strategic goals and focus areas. The meta evaluation work has been targeted to the Tekes programss that have been carried out during 1995-2007. Tekes programss are the most important tool of the implementation of the Tekes strategy and strategy focus areas. The socioeconomic goals in Tekes strategy are welfare effects based on the sustainable energy and environment, quality of social and health system as well as services and platforms of information society. Moreover, our impact model concentrates on the effects of public R&D financing on the whole economy and society. We try to build up a framework of longer term societal welfare effects by focusing on the results of meta evaluation, Tekes strategic goals and focus areas, and Tekes impact model.
|
|
Evaluation's Contribution to Research, Technology and Development (RT&D): From Prescription to Menu to Guidelines
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Steve Montague, Performance Management Network, steve.montague@pmn.net
|
| Rudy Valentin, Canadian Cancer Society, rvalentin@cancer.ca
|
| Christine Williams, Canadian Cancer Society, cwilliams@cancer.ca
|
| Anne Vezina, Canadian Cancer Society, avezina@cancer.ca
|
| Abstract:
Evaluative thinking has influencesd the performance measurement of RT&D initiatves for decades. Tradtionally, evaluation has offered a prescription of key indicators to determine success. Early approaches have measured inputs, outputs and productivity in terms of research publications, often without providing a direct link of the contribution of research to achievement of mission bjectives. The publication of the report "Making an Impact" by the Canadian Academy of Health has provided a multi-facetted results logic and performance measurement menu for R&D. This menu represents an improvement over previous "presciptions" in that it broadens the mix of indicators to include policy, commercial innovation and a variety of mission related impacts. The authrors suggestr that a further refinement of the menu, using a results hierarchy as a guideline, will enhance performance measurement practices as applied to R&D. Specific examples will be discussed , in the context of the Canadian Cancer Society 's research programs.
|
| | |