|
on Project, Program and Portfolio Management |
| By: | Stig Ottosson (Norwegian University of Science and Technology) |
| Abstract: | Today the terms sustainable development and sustainable innovation are often used. But what is meant by these terms, other than that they in some ways are connected to the terms ?green? and ?ecological?? Studying the literature on the topic leads to the conclusion that there is no precise or established definition of sustainable innovation, sustainability and sustainable development.A conclusion in the paper is that we now need to focus on how to develop new sustainable product innovations, and for these, product development is the most important element as the solutions will affect the environment during the whole Product Life Cycle of the products. Another conclusion is that Dynamic Product Development (DPD?) is a model that seems to satisfy the different definitions on sustainability that have been proposed.The result of a product development project is based on the product developer?s knowledge, experience, and ability. The leadership of an entrepreneur (or intrapreneur) is also important for the level of sustainability of an innovation that is achieved. Therefore, the product developers and entrepreneurs need to be educated in a broader perspective than is common in the technical field today. The product developers must also be monitored in the actual work situation to ensure that new products that are not sustainable are not being marketed. This, in turn, calls for a similar, broader perspective in management education. |
| Keywords: | Innovation; innovation process; innovation project; sustainability; sustainable innovation. |
| JEL: | A00 C51 C63 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:sek:iacpro:4707209&r=ppm |
| By: | Mike Muller; Horacio Zandamela |
| Abstract: | All countries, especially developing countries with limited financial resources, face difficult decisions in prioritizing public funds for investment projects in order to achieve strategic public goals in the face of multiple demands. Effective investment often requires coordination between different institutions and the management of political pressure to divert investment in support of private interests. It also requires the identification of appropriate sources of funds for different purposes. The preparation of an integrated infrastructure investment plan (IIIP) that uses structured approaches to review investment proposals has been suggested, and adopted in some cases, as an instrument to address these challenges and bridge the gap between national planning and sectoral budgeting. This article considers the experience of Mozambique in deploying an IIIP and concludes that the instrument may be helpful as part of a system of investment planning and allocation but that it has significant limitations. |
| Date: | 2016 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:unu:wpaper:wp2016-162&r=ppm |
| By: | Julien Ambrosino (Aerospace Valley, IMS - Laboratoire de l'intégration, du matériau au système - Université Sciences et Technologies - Bordeaux 1 - Institut Polytechnique de Bordeaux - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, ESTIA Recherche - Ecole Supérieure des Technologies Industrielles Avancées (ESTIA)); Jérémy Legardeur (IMS - Laboratoire de l'intégration, du matériau au système - Université Sciences et Technologies - Bordeaux 1 - Institut Polytechnique de Bordeaux - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, ESTIA Recherche - Ecole Supérieure des Technologies Industrielles Avancées (ESTIA)); Dimitri Masson (ESTIA Recherche - Ecole Supérieure des Technologies Industrielles Avancées (ESTIA)); Pauline Théophane (Aerospace Valley) |
| Abstract: | The animation of creative sessions permits to identify new opportunities for collaborative innovation projects. To support this process, a dedicated methodology called STAR (Structured and sTructuring Animation methodology for emeRgence) facilitates project emergence in interclustering and cross-sectoral context during innovation clubs. This deliverable gives animation guidelines to cluster facilitators of the NEPTUNE project in order to explain how the STAR methodology shall be used during the NEPTUNE innovation clubs sessions. Each step of the animation process is described following the same format: 1. prerequisites to check that the facilitator has enough information before starting a step, 2. description of the step, which details the aims and how to use the animation tools dedicated to this step, 3. expected outputs from the use of the STAR methodology. For each step, recommendations are specified to limit issues during animation and avoid misunderstandings. The STAR methodology intends to offer the best conditions to bring out innovation projects without claiming to be a systematic methodology to be exhaustively followed. Thus, the steps, advices and notes composing this document are to be taken as recommendations and should be adapted to each situation. To support clusters managers in animating the NEPTUNE innovation clubs sessions, this deliverable will be completed with a face-to-face Training session for clusters managers (D1.3). |
| Keywords: | creativity,innovation,methodology,STAR,tool,management |
| Date: | 2016–09–22 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-01440894&r=ppm |
| By: | Pierre Benoit Joly (LISIS - Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire Sciences, Innovations, Société - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - UPEM - Université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée - ESIEE Paris - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique); Laurence Colinet (Collège de Direction - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique); Ariane Gaunand (Délégation à l'évaluation - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique); Stephane Lemarié (GAEL - Laboratoire d'Economie Appliquée de Grenoble - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - Université Grenoble Alpes - Grenoble 2); Mireille Matt (GAEL - Laboratoire d'Economie Appliquée de Grenoble - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - Université Grenoble Alpes - Grenoble 2) |
| Abstract: | The Research Impact Assessment (RIA) is expected to increase the efficiency with which public funds are used, and to improve more broadly the functioning of the research and innovation system and its contribution to address a wide range of socio-economic and environmental issues. Both standard economic approaches, which aim to estimate the economic benefits of research investments, and case-study approaches, which aim to analyse the processes of impact generation, have been applied to agricultural research in practice. Standard economic approaches generally focus on public research as information on private efforts in agricultural research is limited, and on economic impacts such as productivity growth. Case studies provide richer information, through a narrative, and highlight the complex relationships among the various variables, events and actors, but it is difficult to standardise results and scale them up. The challenge for RIA is to take into account broader impacts that go beyond science and economic impacts, and to improve knowledge on impact-generating mechanisms. This has become more difficult as agricultural research and innovation systems are increasingly open and complex, and changing quickly. Observation of practices applied to agricultural research in five selected organisations confirms the difference found in RIA between academic research and in practice. In both, the assessment systems pursue the same objectives: 1) Learning: enhance the know-how to produce an environment conducive to socio-economic impact; 2) Capacity building: spread the culture of socio-economic impact to its researchers; and 3) Reporting to stakeholders: from accountability purposes to advocacy targeted to various audiences. The accountability objective, including estimating returns on the financial investment, poses complex challenges and is in tension with the learning and capacity building objectives. The future of RIA will depend on the capacity to improve estimation methods and gather quality information (which also takes into account non-economic impacts) and the sharing of good practices. |
| Keywords: | research impact evaluation,agricultural research,research impact assessment,RIA,public research,agronomic research,recherche publique,recherche agricole,recherche agronomique,évaluation de l'impact,politique de la recherche,impact économique |
| Date: | 2016 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-01431457&r=ppm |
| By: | Fløgstad, Cathrin (Department of Economics, University of Bergen); Hagen, Rune Jansen (Department of Economics, University of Bergen) |
| Abstract: | Excessive dispersion of development assistance has been high on the Paris Agenda on aid effectiveness. However, there is no agreement in the existing literature on how aid dispersion should be measured and few studies of the extent of the problem. We argue for using the Theil Index for both recipients and donors. This relative inequality measure has a major advantage: it allows for a perfect decomposition into variation between and within entities. Exploiting this property, we can rank official donors and recipients not only in terms of the total spread, but also assess the contributions of geographic and sectoral dispersion. We provide a detailed picture of developments along various dimensions (globally as well as for countries, income groups, and regions, over 1998-2013). We further distinguish between bilateral and multilateral donors. Consistent with other studies using more limited samples, we find little effect of the Paris Agenda overall. Aid is more fragmented in Sub-Saharan Africa and in the poorest countries. Globally as well as for most donor and recipient countries, between variation is the main driver of the spread, lending support to the geographic concentration policies many donor countries have adopted. Bilateral aid has been somewhat more dispersed than multilateral aid and in both cases the large number of donors controlling similar shares of total funds is a major driver of the total spread. The latter suggests that concentration could also be achieved through a reduction of the number of actors on the donor side of the aid industry, a perspective that previous studies using other measures have been unable to capture. |
| Keywords: | Foreign aid; aid dispersion; transaction COSTs; Paris Agenda; Theil Index |
| JEL: | F35 H87 |
| Date: | 2017–04–19 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hhs:bergec:2017_003&r=ppm |
| By: | Ira Nichols-Barrer; Nicholas Ingwersen; Elena Moroz; Matt Sloan |
| Abstract: | Design report for the evaluation of MCC’s Training Educators for Excellence activity of MCC’s in the Republic of Georgia. The proposed evaluation includes an evaluation of the performance of teacher and school director training and the impact on teacher and school director practices. |
| Keywords: | primary education, teacher training, school director training, propensity score matching, student-centered learning, formative assessment |
| JEL: | F Z I |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:mpr:mprres:21f897e1a65a4a9faee5d894cc6675df&r=ppm |