1 / 10

Measuring Progress and Impact of Joint Programming Initiatives

This report discusses the methodologies and tools developed by Working Group 5 for measuring the progress and impact of Joint Programming Initiatives (JPIs). It outlines the creation of a self-assessment template, the 'Selfie', and a comprehensive evaluation 'Canvas' for assessing JPIs under Horizon 2020. The report highlights consultation with JPIs, the development of factual indicators, and the necessity for JPIs to establish SMART objectives for meaningful impact measurement. Key insights include the concerns of JPIs regarding evaluations and the importance of stakeholder satisfaction as a proxy for societal impact.

rhonda
Download Presentation

Measuring Progress and Impact of Joint Programming Initiatives

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Working Group 5Measuring progress & impact Members L. Antoniou – CY A. Markotic – HR E. Stumbris – LT A. Kiopa – LV (4/9/13 only) K. Angell-Hansen (4/9/13 only) & J. Berit – JPI Oceans L. Michelet – FR – Rapporteur G. Clarotti – Commission - Secretary Meetings 4 September 2013 5 December 2013 11 March 2014 19 May 2014

  2. Working Group 5Measuring progress & impact Experts involved in the preparation of the deliverables

  3. Working Group 5Measuring progress & impact Deliverables • A template for a rapid self-assessment by JPIs – the ‘Selfie’, to be completed by JPIs for inclusion in the GPC biennial report • A more complete ‘Canvas’ for the fuller evaluation of JPIs (call for tender launched under Horizon 2020) • Reportto the GPC with suggestions for measuring progress and assessing the impact of JPIs

  4. Working Group 5Measuring progress & impact Roadmap

  5. Working Group 5Measuring progress & impact Draft ‘Selfie’ for the self-assessment of JPIs • Intervention logic from JPI to Co-Work. The WG reviewed (with help of 5 external experts) the complete template prepared by the CSA and selected criteria and indicators which can be self-assessed by JPIs in June/July 2014 • Some 20/25 factual indicators, of which 17 descriptive ones – some of which are already available in the Commission (already included in questionnaire) • Six questions to be answered on a Likert scale 1 to 4 (to avoid average ‘middle’ answer). • All JPIs were consulted. Seven replied. Some questions, two additional factual indicators and one additional question.

  6. Draft ‘Selfie’ for the self-assessment of JPIs -1

  7. Draft ‘Selfie’ for the self-assessment of JPIs -1

  8. Draft ‘Selfie’ for the self-assessment of JPIs -1

  9. Draft ‘Selfie’ for the self-assessment of JPIs -1

  10. Working Group 5Measuring progress & impact Questions for the GPC • JPIs are concerned by self-assessment & by the evaluation foreseen in 2015. Fear that they will ‘rank’ on ‘name and shame’ JPIs. • GPC should confirm that JPIs would be assessed with respect to their original scope as per the Council Conclusions which launched them. • Few JPIs have defined a SMART*objective or indicators allowing to measure their impact on the major societal challenge they are addressing (e.g. Increasing by 2 the average number of healthy life years in the European Union’ for EIP ‘Active & Healthy Ageing’). • Does the GPC think such ‘quantified’ objectives would be appropriate? Should the GPC send a message to the JPIs asking them to put in place one or more impact indicator(s)? • Does the GPC agree that societal impact of Research and Innovation actions takes time to measure? Waiting for results to appear, a good ‘proxy’ is satisfaction of stakeholders on their implication and governance of the JPI. * Specific, Measurable, Adequate/Achievable, Realistic/Relevant and Time-related (Peter Drucker, "Management Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices", Harper & Row, 1973)

More Related