Toolbox CRC programme managers – Dag Kavlie, RCN

Analysis of indicators used for CRC Monitoring and Evaluation

Ljubljana, 15 September 2009

Analysis of indicators used for CRC Monitoring and Evaluation

Ljubljana, 15 September 2009

Toolbox CRC programme managers – Dag Kavlie, RCN

CRCs have in some important aspects in common

Definition by COMPERA:

Structured, long term RTDI collaborations in

strategic important areas between academia,

industry and the public sector

Aim:

Bridge the gap between scientific and economic innovation by providing a collective environment for academics, industry and other innovation actors and creating sufficient critical mass

Multiple activities:

Pooling of knowledge, creation of new knowledge by performing different types of research, training and dissemination of knowledge, networking, …

CRC Programmes are different in some aspects

Primary characteristics• Focus on Research as a knowledge basis for Innovation

vs Innovation

Other important features• Physical centre vs Network, (virtual centre) • Separate Legal Entity vs Centre within Host institution• Regional (national) focus vs International• Active participation in centre activities by enterprises vs

cash contribution • Duration of funding, life after end of funding of centre• Size of Budget and Funding profile • Open call vs Predefined thematic area • Industry led vs Academic lead

Needs-drivenBasic research

(Pasteur)

Industrial research(Edison)

YesNo

Yes

No

GoalEconomic or social use

GoalScientific progress

Areas of New technologyCuriosity driven

Basic research(Bohr)

Research in focus

Increased ”end market” driven

Innovation in focus

Positioning of CRCs is crucial to understand the type of Positioning of CRCs is crucial to understand the type of impact and time perspective we should expect impact and time perspective we should expect

Physical Centres vs Networks

• For a Physical centre the researchers are located in the same premises

• Virtual centres may also have research groups that are located together but at different locations

• For Networks the researchers are generally located in the institutions that are the partners of the network

Some main features of present CRC ProgrammesCRC programme Funding Agency Features

Focus onResearch vsInnovation

Physical centre or

Virtual

Nationalvs Inter-national

Legal entity or Part of host institution

COMET FFG, Austria Research Physical International Host institution

VINN Excellence centres

VINNOVA, Sweden Research Physical International Host institution

Centres for Research-based Innovation

RCN, Norway Research Physical International Host institution

Competence Centres Enterprise Ireland, Innovation Physical National Host institution

Kompetenz-netzwerke VDI, Germany Innovation Virtual National Legal entity

Competence Centres Enterprise Estonia, Research Physical National Legal entity

Competence Centres IMPIVA, Progr. 1&2 Valencia, Spain

Research (1) Innovation (2)

Physical National Legal entity

Competence Pools IWT, Belgium Innovation Virtual National Legal entity

Engineering Research C. NSF, USA Research Physical National Host institution

Cooperative Research C. Dept. of Innovation & Science, Australia

Research Physical National Legal entity

Network of Centres of Excellence

NSERC/ Industry Canada, Canada

Research Virtual National Legal entity

What is the purpose of indicators (NSF)

• Collection of some standard measures of performance across all CRCs in a programme (Top down indicators)

• Information base for Programme management• Information base to help centre Evaluators (May

also include bottom up indicators for each centre)• Information base for Agency report to funding

Ministries on Programme achievements

CRC-AustraliaMeasurements along the input to impact chain

INPUT• People, Money, Infrastructure, Prior IP

ACTIVITY• Research projects, Stakeholder engagement, Training

OUTPUT (Result)• Publications, Prototypes, Patents, Ph.ds, Masters,

IMPACT (Outcome)• Gains in Productivity, Industrial development, Health

and Environmental benefits

Indicators should have a close relation to the goals for a centre

Example of expected impacts (outcomes) :• Research in the forefront within thematic area• Knowledge basis relevant for industrial partners• Training of researchers in areas important for

industry• Internationalisation• Increased R&D spending of business partners• Innovations by partners• Impact on industry and society at large

Example: Output/Outcome indicators for Canadian NCEsPerformance area 1: Researcher training and Recruitment• Number of Post docs• Number of Ph. D students• Number of Master students• Number of candidates from centre that are employed in industrial

sector

Performance area 2: Transfer and exploitation of results by industry• Number of patent applicatons and patents issued• Number of license agreements and income by licenses• Number of new products, services and processes• Case studies demonstrating impact

Performance area 3: Increased productivity and economic growth• Number of jobs created• Examples of companies created in new industrial sectors• Case studies of impact on existing industries• Benefit/cost analysis

” Example of a performance areas covered in the midway evaluation for a Norwegian CRC Must identify relevant indicators for each of these areas

Research

RecruitmentInternationalcooperation

Innovation and Value creation

Managementand organisation

Some important observations

• Useful with some top down indicators common for all centres and connected to the strategic aims of the programme

• Allow centres to formulate their own bottom up indicators which are considered particularly relevant for each centre

• The time domain must be taken into account • Indicators are only one element to be considered in an evaluation of

a centre or programme• Case study of success connected to performance areas valuable

part of an evaluation• A common European ”best practice” is not to be aimed for, even if

competence centres have much in common• Much can be learned by study of the indicators used for different

programmes together with the strategic aims of the programme

Analysis of indicators used by COMPERA members

Feedback from eight COMPERA members

Analysis along three main dimensions• Research• Innovation• Centre dimension

Research dimension Result (Output) indicators commonly used

• No of approved EU-projects within the centre’s field of operation (6)

• No of published papers in refereed journals (5)• No of international conference contributions (5)• No of projects with international partners (4)• No of Co-publications with industrial partners (3)• No EU-projects with role as coordinator (3)• No of M Sc degrees connected to the centre (3)• No of Ph.d students working in the centre (3)• No of international visiting researchers (2)

Innovation dimension Result (Output) indicators commonly used

• No of Patent applications (5)• No of new enterprise partners (5)• No of project results that are protected by other than

patents (trademarks etc)(4)• No of projects with active involvement of enterprise

partners (4)

Centre dimension Result (Output) indicators commonly used

• Active involvement of enterprises in Research agenda setting (6)

• No of centre events like workshops, seminars etc (5)• Volume of additional funding (4)

• Communication - Press cuttings related to centre (3) • Mobility of Staff between partners (2)

Impact (Outcome) indicators commonly used

Research• No of Ph.d theses completed (3)• Increase in R%D spending by enterprise partners (4)

Innovation• No of Patents (5)• No of licences based on patents (4)• No of new Products, Processes and Services (5)• No of Spin-of companies (4)• Recruitment of personel from academia to industry (4)