Www.FITT-for-Innovation.eu Partnership Satisfaction & Impact Survey FITT (Fosterring Interregional Exchange in ICT Technology Transfer)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
CDCs 21 Goals. CDC Strategic Imperatives 1. Health impact focus: Align CDCs people, strategies, goals, investments & performance to maximize our impact.
Advertisements

1 EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region as a tool to implement the EU2020 European Commission Directorate General Regional Policy Territorial Cooperation.
CYPRUS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY Internal Evaluation Procedures at CUT Quality Assurance Seminar Organised by the Ministry of Education and Culture and.
1 GRS and Accreditation March Learning objectives After reviewing this presentation, you will understand  How the Global Rating Scale supports.
It’s Time to Talk About Risk and Control
Entrepreneurship youth
Seventh framework programme CAPACITIES specific programme Activities of international cooperation Coordination Support Action - Grant agreement no.:
How Country Stakeholders Get Involved Group Exercise June 2013 MONITORING AND EVALUATION IN THE GEF.
Identification of critical success factors for implementing NLLS, through collaboration and exchange of expertise IDENTIFY LLP-2008-RO-KA1-KA1NLLS.
2-1 The Organizational Context: Strategy, Structure, and Culture Chapter 2 © 2007 Pearson Education.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall 2-1 The Organizational Context: Strategy, Structure, and Culture Chapter 2.
TNO Measurable Impact EARTO Working Group on Quality and Excellence 20th June 2011.
Technology Transfer Follow-up Committee FITT (Fostering Interregional Exchange in ICT Technology Transfer)
Benchmarking as a management tool for continuous improvement in public services u Presentation to Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation u Peter.
Network of Technology Transfer Contacts FITT (Fostering Interregional Exchange in ICT Technology Transfer)
Office of Enabling Technologies Erik Hofer, Director 11/1/2011.
© 2006 Prentice Hall Leadership in Organizations 12-1 Chapter 12 Strategic Leadership by Executives.
By Saurabh Sardesai October 2014.
Business Model Design FITT (Fostering Interregional Exchange in ICT Technology Transfer)
EVALUATION IN THE GEF Juha Uitto Director
The implementation of the rural development policy and its impacts on innovation and modernisation of rural economy Christian Vincentini, European Commission.
GATEWAY TO FINNISH EXPERTISE 1 Commercialization guidelines – NanoCom and ProNano results Dr. Eeva Viinikka, Business Director Programme Director of National.
A Guide for Navigators 1National Disability Institute.
Critical Role of ICT in Parliament Fulfill legislative, oversight, and representative responsibilities Achieve the goals of transparency, openness, accessibility,
Organization Mission Organizations That Use Evaluative Thinking Will Develop mission statements specific enough to provide a basis for goals and.
Invention Disclosure FITT (Fostering Interregional Exchange in ICT Technology Transfer)
Toolbox CRC programme managers – Dag Kavlie, RCN Analysis of indicators used for CRC Monitoring and Evaluation Ljubljana, 15 September 2009.
Hillsdale County Intermediate School District Oral Exit Report Quality Assurance Review Team Education Service Agency Accreditation ESA
Marketing FITT (Fostering Interregional Exchange in ICT Technology Transfer)
Researchers’ Consulting Activities FITT (Fostering Interregional Exchange in ICT Technology Transfer)
1 Analysing the contributions of fellowships to industrial development November 2010 Johannes Dobinger, UNIDO Evaluation Group.
UNDAF M&E Systems Purpose Can explain the importance of functioning M&E system for the UNDAF Can support formulation and implementation of UNDAF M&E plans.
Tracking national portfolios and assessing results Sub-regional Workshop for GEF Focal Points Western and Central Africa Dakar, May 2007.
European Commission Introduction to the Community Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity PROGRESS
WIPO Pilot Project - Assisting Member States to Create an Adequate Innovation Infrastructure to Support University – Industry Collaboration.
Cluster Management Scorecard FITT (Fostering Interregional Exchange in ICT Technology Transfer)
An R&D Manager’s Perspective TechExpo October 5, 2004 Presented by: Veena Rawat.
Building and Recognizing Quality School Systems DISTRICT ACCREDITATION © 2010 AdvancED.
Self Assessment Using EFQM Excellence MODEL Down Lisburn Trust’s Experience of Continuous Improvement John Simpson Down Lisburn Trust.
Aligning HR & Business Strategy. “The long-held notion that HR would become a truly strategic function is finally being realized.”
The Wisconsin Green Tier Program: Developing An Evaluation Tool Analysis by: Darryn Beckstrom, Jessalyn Frost, Erin Rushmer, and Melody Sakazaki.
1 Direction scientifique Networks of Excellence objectives  Reinforce or strengthen scientific and technological excellence on a given research topic.
Tracking national portfolios and assessing results Sub-regional Workshop for GEF Focal Points in West and Central Africa June 2008, Douala, Cameroon.
Version 10.0  The High Performance Organisation Ltd Creating A Process Based Management System 1 Welcome Creating a Process Based Management.
GEF Evaluation Office. Two overarching objectives:  Promote accountability for the achievement of GEF objectives through the assessment of results, effectiveness,
TOWARDS “CLEAN” MINING TECHNOLOGY THROUGH TECHNICAL SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION Nicolae Ilias, Romania.
Consultant Advance Research Team. Outline UNDERSTANDING M&E DATA NEEDS PEOPLE, PARTNERSHIP AND PLANNING 1.Organizational structures with HIV M&E functions.
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD TRB’s Vision for Transportation Research.
Presentation to Membership. A Recap of Our Process February 2009: Decision to renew strategic plan March 2009: Engagement of Berlin, Eaton.
1 The project is financed from the European Union funds within the framework of Erasmus+, Key Action 2: Cooperation for innovation and the exchange of.
1 Framework Programme 7 Overview. 2 The Programmes within FP7 IDEAS European Research Counsel ERC PEOPLE Marie Curie Measures Initial Training Life-long.
Version VTT TECHNOLOGY STUDIES Evaluating the societal impacts of Public research organisations: A (belated) paradigm shift in the making Kaisa.
Rooting evaluation independence in the context of multilateral development organizations Oscar A. Garcia Director, Independent Office of Evaluation of.
1 Balanced Scorecard Philosophy, Basics, Fundamentals, and Functions.
Title of presentation Copyright IDS and MeTA 2010
MODELOS DE GESTIÓN DE CALIDAD
MONITORING AND EVALUATION IN THE GEF
Commitment 9: Set out EIT strategic agenda
Technical Cooperation Section SEDI- Executive Office
EU GATEWAY TO KOREA Facilitating long-lasting business collaborations
Building Statistical Capacity UNSD perspective
MONITORING AND EVALUATION IN THE GEF
The Organizational Context: Strategy, Structure, and Culture
The Organizational Context: Strategy, Structure, and Culture
The Organizational Context: Strategy, Structure, and Culture
MONITORING AND EVALUATION IN THE GEF
UNDP Asia Pacific Regional Centre August 2010
MONITORING AND EVALUATION IN THE GEF
MONITORING AND EVALUATION IN THE GEF
Presentation transcript:

Partnership Satisfaction & Impact Survey FITT (Fosterring Interregional Exchange in ICT Technology Transfer)

2 |Partnership Satisfaction & Impact Survey Partnership Management  Partnership management is essential to assure the best relationship and cooperation, business or research, between TTO’s and industrial partners.  Relationship Management with partners and customers enables to: Have more efficient exploitation of the research results Create mutual trust, long-lasting and positive relationships Pave the way for future transfer opportunities  Successful partnership management brings mutual benefits: Identify opportunities Stay aligned to market needs/expectations Identify & solve specific problems

3 |Partnership Satisfaction & Impact Survey Partnership Management Partnership Agreement Partners and clients Satisfaction survey Impact Assessment  This practice is supported by three main pillars:

4 |Partnership Satisfaction & Impact Survey The satisfaction survey  Satisfaction survey impacts the organization at different levels:  The organization’s culture  The internal processes  The main objective is to identify sources of dissatisfaction and to initiate improvement actions with specific indicators that allow a close follow-up. Hints:  Conducting a “mirror” survey is strongly recommended to compare the perception of partners’ satisfaction with the staff’s point of view  Identify the gap between internal and external perception and initiate actions to reduce it  Outsourcing the survey could overcome impartiality issues Satisfaction survey is a tool that shows how the Public Research Organization is perceived by clients and partners

5 |Partnership Satisfaction & Impact Survey The satisfaction survey process The survey process: 1.Select indicators according to what you want to measure and your objectives  assure the follow-up of the indicators over time 2.Prepare the questionnaire according to the communication channel and reduce the bias 3.Segment your clients and partners before picking up the sample  All the relationship with them must be closed at the start of the survey 4.Run the survey by phone (for instance) complemented with face to face interviews with clients and partners expressing a high degree of dissatisfaction 5.Process the qualitative and quantitative data, stress strengths and suggest improvements 6.Disseminate result across the organization

6 |Partnership Satisfaction & Impact Survey The impact of research results  Impact Assessment is a “tricky” practice to put in place due to the choice of the relevant indicators  A long time span is very often required to assess the impact of the research results to be considered as reliable: more than 5 years in most cases  It is difficult to isolate the impact of a transferred result from other organizational activities, decisions, etc.  The impact of the results must only be assessed after their transfer Impact assessment is a tool to enable an in-depth evaluation of impact of public research and transfer activities on economic, environmental and social fields.

7 |Partnership Satisfaction & Impact Survey Impact survey: some indicators Category of impactsExample of indicators Impact on economy, technology and commercialization Product/Service/Process/ Creation/Improvement Cost-savings Research Methods Creation/Improvement Patent Applications Impact on knowledge, expertise and human capital Expertise strengthening Research Methods Improvement Scientific Impacts: scientific publications, conference and seminar presentation Impact on networking and social capital Network creation Domestic networks, Global networks Organizational and social innovations Impact on decision making and public discourse Participation in legislative and strategic planning Norms, Regulation and standards Impact on social and physical environment Material/Resources and/or Energy Consumption Reduction Regional development and growth Promotion Safety Promotion

8 |Partnership Satisfaction & Impact Survey Stakeholders  Satisfaction survey:  Quality service (2 full-time persons)  Coordinate the survey, present the results to the staff, recommend and engage actions  Top and middle Management  Communicate the results inside the five CRP Henri Tudor’s departments. Disseminate the results among the research teams  CRP Henri Tudor’s Board of directors  Presentation of the results and recommendations  Partners and clients  feedback on the survey results and the actions engaged  Impact assessment:  Project management office (1 part-time person)  Define the process and coordinate the related activities Other potential stakeholders:  Governmental organisms : Ministry of the high education and the research, Ministry of the economy and the Research National Fund (FNR)  Set the performance contract terms as a function of impact achievements

9 |Partnership Satisfaction & Impact Survey PRO’s & CON’s PROs Remain aligned with the clients/partners and market expectations Engage the organization in a constant self- improvement process Assess the impact of the transferred results  Realize the real value of the PRO in its region or country CONs Satisfaction indicators are in most cases too global do not providing specific feedback to the teams or individuals These practices impact the culture and process of the whole organization  Big changes require to be managed carefully

10 |Partnership Satisfaction & Impact Survey Rationale Use the Satisfaction survey if :  Your clients’ and partners’ satisfaction is part of your mission or objectives  You mainly provide solutions to real problems and need feedbacks from the market, clients or partners  You assess the performance of your organization in a key performance indicators (KPI) basis  You are ISO 9001 certified and you have to fulfill the quality requirements Use the Impact assessment if:  You have to express before your stakeholders how valuable your organization is for your region/country  You want to assess the real performance of the organization and its alignment with its mission

11 |Partnership Satisfaction & Impact Survey Outcomes  Evaluation of the real contribution of the satisfaction survey requires a longer time horizon  at the current state it is too early to claim their real contributions of this practice  Impact Assessment of the transferred research results has not been successfully implemented yet (at CRP Henri Tudor)  Rethinking in progress Partnership management requires time to see tangible results: start the process, monitor it and above all…be patient

12 |Partnership Satisfaction & Impact Survey Lessons Learned  Satisfaction survey  Clients and partners segmentation is paramount to be successful in the evaluation of their satisfaction  Tracking the clients and partners satisfaction over time is critical to evaluate the evolution of organization’s performance and the relevance of the actions engaged  Selection of the right impact and satisfaction indicators are critical to have reliable assessments  take into account your organization's objectives  Impact Assessment  Research results Impact Assessment is a “tricky” practice to put in place  get active advice and support from the organizations having already succeeded to implement it  Impact surveys conducted too early create frustration and not reliable results: > 5 years in average

13 |Partnership Satisfaction & Impact Survey Suggested Readings  Link to bibliography  “Responsible Partnering. Joining Forces in a World of Open Innovation. A Guide to Better Practices for Collaborative Research and Knowledge Transfer between Science and Industry” - Guidelines published by European University Association, European Association of Research and Technology Organizations, European Industrial Research Management Association, ProTon Europe  “University-Industry Research Relations in the United States” - by Bronwyn H. Hall  Link to relevant websites  