nep-ppm New Economics Papers
on Project, Program and Portfolio Management
Issue of 2008‒03‒15
five papers chosen by
Arvi Kuura
Parnu College - Tartu University

  1. Evaluating innovation policy: a structural treatment effect model of R&D subsidies By Takalo, Tuomas; Tanayama, Tanja; Toivanen, Otto
  2. Evaluation in the practice of development By Ravallion, Martin
  3. Evaluating the Impact of Technology Development Funds in Emerging Economies: Evidence from Latin America By Bronwyn H. Hall; Alessandro Maffioli
  4. Life cycle costing: an alternative selection tool By Shil, Nikhil Chandra; Parvez, Mahbub
  5. Strategy Workshops and Strategic Change By MacIntosh, Robert; MacLean, Donald; Seidl, David

  1. By: Takalo, Tuomas (Bank of Finland Research); Tanayama, Tanja (HECER, University of Helsinki); Toivanen, Otto (HECER, University of Helsinki)
    Abstract: This paper studies the welfare effects of R&D subsidies. We develop a model of continuous optimal treatment with outcome heterogeneity where the treatment outcome depends on applicant investment. The model takes into account heterogeneous application costs and identifies the treatment effect on the public agency running the programme. Under the assumption of a welfare-maximizing agency, we identify general equilibrium treatment effects. Applyiing our model to R&D project-level data we find substantial treatment effect heterogeneity. Agency-specific treatment effects are smaller than private treatment effects. We find that the rate of return on subsidies for the agency is 30–50%.
    Keywords: applications; effort; investment; R&D; selection; subsidies; treatment programme; treatment effects; welfare
    JEL: C31 L53 O31 O38
    Date: 2008–03–11
  2. By: Ravallion, Martin
    Abstract: Knowledge about development effectiveness is constrained by two factors. First, the project staff in governments and international agencies who decide how much to invest in research on specific interventions are often not well informed about the returns to rigorous evaluation and (even when they are) cannot be expected to take full account of the external benefits to others from new knowledge. This leads to under-investment in evaluative research. Second, while standard methods of impact evaluation are useful, they often leave many questions about development effectiveness unanswere d. The paper proposes ten steps for making evaluations more relevant to the needs of practitioners. It is argued that more attention needs to be given to identifying policy-relevant questions (including the case for intervention); that a broader approach should be taken to the problems of internal validity; and that the problems of external validity (including scaling up) merit more attention.
    Keywords: Poverty Monitoring & Analysis,Science Education,Scientific Research & Science Parks,Population Policies,Tertiary Education
    Date: 2008–03–01
  3. By: Bronwyn H. Hall; Alessandro Maffioli
    Abstract: Evaluations of government Technology Development Funds (TDF) in Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Panama are surveyed. All the evaluations were done at the recipient (firm) level using data from innovation surveys, industrial surveys, and administrative records of the granting units, together with quasi-experimental econometric techniques to minimize the effects of any selection bias. TDF effectiveness is found to depend on the financing mechanism used, on the presence of non-financial constraints, on firm-university interaction, and on the characteristics of the target beneficiaries. Four levels of potential impact were considered: R&D input additionality, behavioural additionality, increases in innovative output, and improvements in performance. The evidence suggests that TDF do not crowd out private investment and that they positively affect R&D intensity. In addition, participation in TDF induces a more proactive attitude of beneficiary firms towards innovation activities. However, the analysis does not find much statistically significant impact on patents or new product sales and the evidence on firm performance is mixed, with positive results in terms of firm growth, but little corresponding positive impact on measures of firm productivity, possibly because the horizon over which the evaluation was conducted was too short.
    JEL: O32 O38
    Date: 2008–03
  4. By: Shil, Nikhil Chandra; Parvez, Mahbub
    Abstract: In today’s complex business environment, both raising and application of fund becomes so costly. Thus, business needs to take a wise decision of investing funds in fixed facilities, which at one side consumes a lot of costly fund and on the other, set the value of the business. Net present value (NPV), pay back period (PBP), internal rate of return (IRR) are some widely used and customary tools in such situation most of which are based on projected revenues. In this paper, we have tried to use life cycle costing as a strong alternative, which considers every cost category throughout the life of the assets, from cradle to grave, to represent the effective use of funds in its totality. The theoretical foundation of LCC as a tool comes from literature review but the application of LCC in alternative choosing areas are the development of the authors. The use of mathematical tools and equations is an exemplary one that may be changed or modified to fit it with the typical context, if necessary. The paper can be a guideline which finally concludes that the use of life cycle costing as an alternative selection tool results a better cost structure analysis than others.
    Keywords: Cost Breakdown Structure (CBS); Invisible Costs; Iceberg Effect; Affinity Diagram
    JEL: M4
    Date: 2007–06–30
  5. By: MacIntosh, Robert; MacLean, Donald; Seidl, David
    Abstract: Despite the attention that strategic change as a topic of research has received, there remain considerable difficulties in conceptualizing the actual sources of strategic change. Strategy workshops represent one obvious and explicit research site since organizations often use such events as a means of effecting or initiating strategic change. This paper examines empirical data from ninety-nine strategy workshops in ten separate organizations to address the research question: Do strategy workshops produce strategic change? The paper concludes that workshops can produce change but that one-off workshops are much less effective than a series of workshops. The data presented indicates that the elapsed duration of the entire series of workshops, the frequency of workshops, the scope and autonomy of the unit concerned, and the seniority of participants have an impact on the success or failure of the venture.
    Keywords: Co-production of Knowledge; Engaged Scholarship; Strategic Change; Strategy as Practice; Strategy Workshops
    Date: 2008–01–03

This nep-ppm issue is ©2008 by Arvi Kuura. It is provided as is without any express or implied warranty. It may be freely redistributed in whole or in part for any purpose. If distributed in part, please include this notice.
General information on the NEP project can be found at For comments please write to the director of NEP, Marco Novarese at <>. Put “NEP” in the subject, otherwise your mail may be rejected.
NEP’s infrastructure is sponsored by the School of Economics and Finance of Massey University in New Zealand.