Search

The logo of the University of Manchester incorporates a date of establishment of 1824 but this display of pedigree disguises the much more recent foundation of a new university by Royal Charter (A Royal Charter is a means of incorporation granted by the Sovereign of the United Kingdom on the advice of the Privy Council. The UK’s older Universities derive their legal identity by this means, and though largely dependent upon government funding, are independent not-for-profit bodies with their own governing bodies with responsibilities similar to those of a company board) on 1st October 2004. This new university, immediately the United Kingdom’s largest, was formed through an effective merger of two institutions, the Victoria University of Manchester (This was the formal name of the predecessor institution, reflecting its Victorian foundation, but it was almost universally known by the same name as its successor, the new University of Manchester. Prior to the merger UMIST staff and students almost universally referred to it as “Owens” after its historic college origins) (VUM) and the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology (UMIST). At the time the use of the term ‘merger’ was discouraged as the project was not principally driven by the typical merger objectives of rationalisation and achieving scale. Rather the aim was to create a new institution that would drive towards a much higher position in the pantheon of world elite institutions than either of its predecessors had achieved in modern times but with a distinctive identity that did not emulate the UK’s so-called Golden Triangle of Cambridge, Oxford and the leading two London Universities, nor the highly-endowed US Ivy League.

Drawing upon the presentations made at the fourth conference on Future-oriented Technology Analysis, this essay reflects on the implications of the current period of instability and discontinuity for the practice of FTA or foresight. In the past the demand environment for foresight on research and innovation policy favoured application to priority-setting and articulation of demand. New tendencies include a heightened search for breakthrough science and a focus on grand societal challenges. By their nature boundary-spanning, these make it less easy to locate FTA institutionally to achieve the necessary cross-cutting perspective. New institutions, methods and combinations of methods are noted. Dealing with disruptive transformations is seen as the key forward challenge for the practice of FTA. © 2012 Elsevier Inc.

Evaluation of research and innovation policy faces radical challenges arising from a new policy emphasis upon demand-side measures and linked to this an understanding of innovation policy as a means to achieve societal goals. This article considers the implications for the practice of evaluation at both micro and meso-levels. It uses the exemplar of an evaluation design for the European Union's Lead Market Initiative to expose the extent to which classical approaches to evaluation are valid and where new issues arise. Some problems highlighted include the difficulty of establishing a relevant baseline, the inability of public statistics constructed in supply-side mode to capture actions, the need to engage with actors who do not necessarily see themselves as part of the initiative being evaluated, long timescales and potential wide geographical scope, measures that span from micro to macro, and blurred boundaries between implementation and impact. It is concluded that there is a key role for evaluators to become involved in co-learning and co-evolution of these policy instruments in a manner analogous to the relationship between evaluation and policy development that characterized the emergence of collaborative R&D support programmes. Copyright The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com, Oxford University Press.

The paper addresses the application of foresight to research and innovation policy and strategy. It seeks to show an evolution away from a traditional focus on broad-based technological priority setting to a much more focussed and adapted set of applications. The inherent limitations of prioritisation processes are discussed. The more limited aim of articulating specific fields is noted. Recent trends in research and innovation policy have opened new opportunities for the application of foresight. Systemic and demand-side policies require a shared vision on the part of purchasers and suppliers. The role of foresight in such contexts needs both to be enhanced and better understood. An increasing structural focus for foresight exercises is associated not only with broader R&I system reform but also with an engagement with new-wave innovation policies. The success of demand-side measures such as cluster policies and the use of procurement or regulation to stimulate innovation is dependent upon the formation of a common vision between the supply and demand sides, opening the possibility for the application of foresight approaches. We note the emergence of a combination of corrective, disruptive and creative roles.

Demand is a major potential source of innovation, yet the critical role of demand as a key driver of innovation has still to be recognised in government policy. This article discusses public procurement as one of the key elements of a demand-oriented innovation policy. The paper starts by signaling the new significance of public procurement for innovation policy strategies at the EU level and in a range of European countries. It then defines the concept of public procurement and embeds this concept within a taxonomy of innovation policies. The rationales and justifications of public procurement policies to spur innovation are discussed, followed by a consideration of the challenges and potential pitfalls as well as appropriate institutional arrangements and strategies, including some recent empirical examples of good practice. It concludes by confronting the public procurement approach with two of the most common objections to it and by considering future prospects.

Two propositions are explored: that present R&D evaluation methods risk missing key effects; that there is a tendency to underestimate the effects of public support. Using the example of a recent impact assessment of the EUREKA initiative, the paper seeks to show the limitations of typical questionnaire approaches. As an alternative, it introduces the ‘Iceberg Model’ as a metaphor for hidden effects and, building on work such as the BETA method and measurement of externalities, uses high-impact case studies to illustrate the importance of strategic behavioural effects and the use of technologies developed beyond the goals of the funded project. It is concluded that questionnaires are best used to identify the small proportion of projects that account for most effects and then resources should be focused on deep probes of these projects. The role of government in affecting positive strategic decisions or firms' routines should also be explored. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

This book focuses on Public Procurement for Innovation. Public Procurement for Innovation is a specific demand-side innovation policy instrument. It occurs when a public organization places an order for a new or improved product to fulfill certain needs that cannot be met at the moment of the order. The book provides evidence of the potential benefits to public and private actors from the selective use of this policy instrument and illustrates the requirements and constraints for its operationalization. The book intends to significantly improve the understanding of key determinants of effective public procurement aiming to promote innovative capabilities in the supplying sectors and beyond. It provides both case studies and conceptual contributions that help extend the frontier of our understanding in areas where there are still significant gaps.

This book focuses on Public Procurement for Innovation. Public Procurement for Innovation is a specific demand-side innovation policy instrument. It occurs when a public organization places an order for a new or improved product to fulfill certain needs that cannot be met at the moment of the order. The book provides evidence of the potential benefits to public and private actors from the selective use of this policy instrument and illustrates the requirements and constraints for its operationalization. The book intends to significantly improve the understanding of key determinants of effective public procurement aiming to promote innovative capabilities in the supplying sectors and beyond. It provides both case studies and conceptual contributions that help extend the frontier of our understanding in areas where there are still significant gaps.

This volume casts light on mergers and alliances in higher education by examining developments of this type in different countries. It combines the direct experiences of those at the heart of such transformations, university leaders and senior officials responsible for higher education policy, with expert analysts of the systems concerned.Higher education in Europe faces a series of major challenges. The economic crisis has accelerated expectations of an increased role in addressing economic and societal challenges while at the same time putting pressure on available finances. Broader trends such as shifting student demographics and expectations, globalisation and mobility and new ways of working with business have contributed to these increased pressures. In the light of these trends there have been moves, both from national or regional agencies and from individual institutions to respond by combining resources, either through collaborative arrangements or more fundamentally through mergers between two or more universities.After an introductory chapter by the editors which establishes the context for mergers and alliances, the book falls into two main parts. Part 1 takes a national or regional perspective to give some sense of the historical context, the wider drivers and the importance of these developments in these cases. Included are both systemic accounts (for countries as France, Sweden, Romania, Russia, Wales and England), and specific cross-cutting initiatives including a major facility at Magurele in Romania and a Spanish programme for promoting international campuses of excellence. Part 2 is built from specific cases of universities, either in mergers or alliances, with examples from different countries (such as France, UK, Romania, Spain, Germany, Denmark, Finland, Switzerland). A concluding chapter by the editors assesses these experiences and indicates the implications and future needs for understanding in this domain.

This volume casts light on mergers and alliances in higher education by examining developments of this type in different countries. It combines the direct experiences of those at the heart of such transformations, university leaders and senior officials responsible for higher education policy, with expert analysts of the systems concerned.Higher education in Europe faces a series of major challenges. The economic crisis has accelerated expectations of an increased role in addressing economic and societal challenges while at the same time putting pressure on available finances. Broader trends such as shifting student demographics and expectations, globalisation and mobility and new ways of working with business have contributed to these increased pressures. In the light of these trends there have been moves, both from national or regional agencies and from individual institutions to respond by combining resources, either through collaborative arrangements or more fundamentally through mergers between two or more universities.After an introductory chapter by the editors which establishes the context for mergers and alliances, the book falls into two main parts. Part 1 takes a national or regional perspective to give some sense of the historical context, the wider drivers and the importance of these developments in these cases. Included are both systemic accounts (for countries as France, Sweden, Romania, Russia, Wales and England), and specific cross-cutting initiatives including a major facility at Magurele in Romania and a Spanish programme for promoting international campuses of excellence. Part 2 is built from specific cases of universities, either in mergers or alliances, with examples from different countries (such as France, UK, Romania, Spain, Germany, Denmark, Finland, Switzerland). A concluding chapter by the editors assesses these experiences and indicates the implications and future needs for understanding in this domain.

The foundation of a university often reflects the preoccupations of its age, reaching back to theological roots in medieval times, and later meeting the needs of nineteenth century empires for administrators with a rounded education or those of the emerging professional and industrial classes for a highly trained workforce and for research, particularly in science and engineering. Humanistic ideals and academic freedom were embodied as core elements in most cases. Such institutions, with more than a century behind them, have become part of a much larger population of universities as the expectations of and demands for a graduate education drove a global era of expansion and massification. While the core concept of a university remains recognisable almost anywhere that the term is used, substantial differentiation nonetheless exists. This differentiation may lie in the nature of the student population, the focus of the curriculum, the degree of research intensity, the form of governance, financial viability, scale of activity, the degree of autonomy and the extent to which it is embedded in one or more locations. More recently, as rankings and other forms of assessment have entered the picture, the level of ambition of an institution has also become a distinguishing factor.

This socio-economic study is based on the widely held view that there is an inadequate supply of human biological samples that is hampering biomedical research development and innovation (RDI). The potential value of samples and the associated data are thus not being realized. We aimed to examine whether the financing of biobanks contributes to this problem and then to propose a national solution. We combined three methods: a qualitative case study; literature analysis; and informal consultations with experts. The case study enabled an examination of the complex institutional arrangements for biobanks, with a particular focus on cost models. For the purposes of comparison, a typology for biobanks was developed using the three methods. We found that it is not possible to apply a standard cost model across the diversity of biobanks, and there is a deficit in coordination and sustainability and an excess of complexity. We propose that coordination across this diversity requires dedicated resources for a national biobanking distributed research infrastructure. A coordination center would establish and improve standards and support a national portal for access. This should be financed centrally by public funds, possibly supplemented by industrial funding. We propose that: a) sample acquisition continues to be costed into projects and project proposals to ensure biobanking is driven by research needs; b) core biobanking activities and facilities be supported by central public funds distributed directly to host public institutions; and c) marginal costs for access be paid for by the user.

The paper addresses the question of what constitutes an appropriate evaluation strategy for national foresight activities in different situations. The variety of rationales for foresight is explored, ranging from a desire to set priorities through to participation-oriented goals and building new networks around common visions and strategies. A generational model of foresight is used to show the evolution of key evaluation issues. The generic motivations for evaluation of accountability, justification and learning are discussed in the context of foresight. Evaluation grounded in the concept of behavioural additionality and the systems failure rationale is shown to be more suited as a rationale for foresight as public policy. Assessing the effects of foresight requires an understanding that it is only one of several influences on public policy. To be effective it needs to be tuned into the strategic behaviour and cycles of policy and economic actors. Cases are presented of evaluation of foresight programmes in the United Kingdom, Germany and Hungary. It is concluded that there is no “one-size-fits-all” evaluation approach and that the method selected is conditioned by motivation, timing and the level of aggregation. Foresight cannot be fully evaluated independently from its context. Foresight is being strengthened by the emergence of rigorous and systematic knowledge to assist learning and improvement.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to set out the process by which a smart specialisation strategy was developed for a small, peripheral economy in the European Union, the Republic of Malta. It assesses the applicability of the approach in the context of a micro-economy with an industrial structure based on a small number of foreign direct investments and a predominance of micro-enterprises. Design/methodology/approach – The paper follows an action research approach by presenting as a case study the process by which the strategy for Malta was assessed and developed through successive rounds of engagement with business and other actors with the application of scenarios and other prioritisation approaches to facilitate its development. An initial consultation with 20 public sector and representative organisations was followed by a general business workshop and 21 sectoral focus groups. Findings – Lack of critical mass can be mitigated by maximising the generic use of available skills and competences. Given the higher vulnerability to external shock in micro-economies, strategies need to have a high degree of flexibility and adaptability. Greater internationalisation provides the main response to peripherality. Practical implications – The approach can be applied more generally for micro-economies and in some aspects to other countries or regions lacking critical mass in research and innovation assets or facing peripherality. Originality/value – The smart specialisation approach had not been applied in these circumstances and hence the findings allowed the concept to be extended and adapted to deal with the issues raised.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to set out the process by which a smart specialisation strategy was developed for a small, peripheral economy in the European Union, the Republic of Malta. It assesses the applicability of the approach in the context of a micro-economy with an industrial structure based on a small number of foreign direct investments and a predominance of micro-enterprises. Design/methodology/approach The paper follows an action research approach by presenting as a case study the process by which the strategy for Malta was assessed and developed through successive rounds of engagement with business and other actors with the application of scenarios and other prioritisation approaches to facilitate its development. An initial consultation with 20 public sector and representative organisations was followed by a general business workshop and 21 sectoral focus groups. Findings Lack of critical mass can be mitigated by maximising the generic use of available skills and competences. Given the higher vulnerability to external shock in micro-economies, strategies need to have a high degree of flexibility and adaptability. Greater internationalisation provides the main response to peripherality. Practical implications The approach can be applied more generally for micro-economies and in some aspects to other countries or regions lacking critical mass in research and innovation assets or facing peripherality. Originality/value The smart specialisation approach had not been applied in these circumstances and hence the findings allowed the concept to be extended and adapted to deal with the issues raised.

Many forms of analyzing future technology and its consequences coexist, for example, technology intelligence, forecasting, roadmapping, assessment, and foresight. All of these techniques fit into a field we call technology futures analysis (TFA). These methods have matured rather separately, with little interchange and sharing of information on methods and processes. There is a range of experience in the use of all of these, but changes in the technologies in which these methods are used-from industrial to information and molecular-make it necessary to reconsider the TFA methods. New methods need to be explored to take advantage of information resources and new approaches to complex systems. Examination of the processes sheds light on ways to improve the usefulness of TFA to a variety of potential users, from corporate managers to national policy makers. Sharing perspectives among the several TFA forms and introducing new approaches from other fields should advance TFA methods and processes to better inform technology management as well as science and research policy. (C) 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

The paper describes the design and implementation of an evaluation of a participative foresight process, Futur — the German Research Dialogue. Futur aims to enrich the process of strategy development for research priorities by involving a broad array of actors in a combination of different instruments to develop ‘lead visions’. The process of a strategic intelligence exercise that combined elements of ex ante evaluation, technology assessment and foresight is summarised, along with key findings from the evaluation. The modified peer review approach employed to evaluate Futur was structured along lines of accountability to support a continuation decision and also had a learning orientation. This evaluation approach is contrasted with the ambitions of the process being evaluated, notably the emphasis upon stakeholder participation and transparency. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Public procurement is increasingly viewed as having important potential to drive innovation. Despite this interest, numerous barriers prevent the public sector from acting as an intelligent and informed customer. This paper seeks to understand how barriers related to processes, competences, procedures and relationships in public procurement influence suppliers'ability to innovate and to reap the benefits of innovation. We address this by exploiting a dedicated survey of public sector suppliers in the UK, using a probit model to investigate the influence of structural, market and innovation determinants on suppliers'perception of these barriers. The main barriers reported by suppliers refer to the lack of interaction with procuring organisations, the use of over-specified tenders as opposed to outcome based specifications, low competences of procurers and a poor management of risk during the procurement process. Such barriers are perceived most strongly by R&D intensive organisations. Our results also indicate that certain organisations, particularly smaller firms and not-forprofit organisations, encounter greater difficulties with innovation arising from the procurement process, for instance in relation to contract size, lack of useful feedback and communication of opportunities. Government procurement policies are queried in light of the findings. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. Allrights reserved.

open access article Public procurement is increasingly seen as an important potential instrument of innovation policy. However, policy design has been underpinned largely by anecdotal evidence and without a clear theoretical or empirical basis for understanding how supplying to the public sector actually influences a firm's innovation capabilities and performance and in what ways desirable behaviour and outcomes can be promoted. This paper seeks to address the basis of innovation procurement policy. It establishes a broad taxonomy of procurement policies and instruments that have emerged in OECD countries in response to perceived deficiencies and then compares these with the perceptions of firms using an analysis of a dedicated survey of 800 public sector suppliers in the UK. It is observed that policy measures include the creation of framework conditions, establishing organisational frameworks and developing capabilities, identifying, specifying and signalling needs, and incentivising innovative solutions. The survey findings confirm that the barriers encountered by firms correspond to the deficiencies addressed by policies but do not address them sufficiently. This arises from lack of coverage, lack of ownership by purchasers, failure to address the whole cycle of acquisition and to address risk aversion. The scope of policy measures needs to be extended in time, breadth of reach and depth.

The evolution of the inter-relationship between the European Union’s Framework Programme, the EUREKA initiative and COST is examined. It is concluded that the rationales acquired through their historical origins and development have been overtaken by changing circumstances. In turn this has affected the division of labour and modes of co-existence between the initiatives. Using the conclusions of recent strategic reviews, and in the light of the European research area concept, a framework for European research policy driven by co-ordination is proposed which combines the strengths of the existing schemes but sets them in the context of a broader European innovation policy.

Equipment is critical to the progress of research; therefore its provision is a significant science policy issue. There may be under-investment in equipment relative to other factors of scientific production such as staff. At a European level, inadequate infrastructure is a potential barrier to achievement of objectives, hence its recognition as a theme for the European Research Area. Equipment provision is inherently suited to benchmarking, though the scope of any exercise should be extended from instruments to include the whole policy and service package surrounding equipment. Three approaches to benchmarking are examined: opinion-based surveys; case-studies of matched research groups; and national surveys to a common format. Issues arising from comparison of experience in the UK and Ireland are discussed and conclusions are drawn regarding a possible European approach. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

This book addresses the critical issue of how and why European universities are changing and learning to compete. Anglo-Saxon universities particularly in the US, the UK and Australia have long been subject to, and responded to, market-based competition in higher education. The authors argue that Continental and Nordic universities and higher education institutes are now facing similar pressures that are leading to a structural transformation of the university sector.

This article reviews the analytical tools, methods, and designs being used to evaluate public programs intended to stimulate technological advance. The review is organized around broad policy categories rather than particular types of policy intervention, because methods used are rarely chosen independent of context. The categories addressed include publicly-supported research conducted in universities and public sector research organizations; evaluations of linkages, especially those programs seeking to promote academic-industrial and public-private partnerships; and the evaluation of diffusion and industrial extension programs. The internal evaluation procedures of science such as peer review and bibliometrics are not covered, nor are methods used to projects and individuals ex ante. Among the conclusion is the observation that evaluation work has had less of an impact in the literature that it deserves, in part because much of the most detailed and valuable work is not easily obtainable. A second conclusion is that program evaluations and performance reviews, which have distinctive objectives, measures, and tools, are becoming entangled, with the lines between the two becoming blurred. Finally, new approaches to measuring the payoffs from research that focus on linkages between knowledge producers and users, and on the characteristics of research networks, appear promising as the limitations of the production function and related methods have become apparent.

The A. first considers the antecedents of evaluation and the motivations for carrying it out. Turning then to the Framework Programme he reviews the history of its evaluation and the present approach. Finally, he considers some challenges raised by the Fifth Framework Programme, in particular those concerning the evaluation of social effects and the broader system to support evaluation

This paper examines the role of industry in the support of academic infrastructure, in particular university research equipment. Although the United Kingdom provides the framework for discussion the described situation should be a familiar one in most countries. The argument is constructed around the perceptions, opinions and positions of universities, government and industry. Drawing on results from a survey of academic departments the equipment situation at UK universities is outlined. Following that the position of the Government attempting to attract industrial support for university research equipment is discussed. And finally, industry's views of where the demarcation between public and private responsibility lies are presented.

Europe provides large-scale public support for collaborative R&D, notably through the European Union's Framework Programmes and the intergovernmental Eureka Initiative. Experience in evaluating these programmes is reviewed, with particular emphasis on assessment of their socio-economic effects. For the Framework Programmes a panel-based evaluation system has been unable to address these effects adequately. New emphasis on promoting research as a solution to economic and social problems has created additional demands for evaluation. In Eureka, a 'continuous and systematic evaluation' process collects information about project impacts on and after completion. Results show a highly skewed success pattern and new complex benefits arising from knowledge generation and networking. A schema of outputs and effects is presented and the issues of additionality and policy persistence discussed. It is concluded that a broader view of effects is needed if under-valuation is to be avoided.

This article examines the emerging phenomenon of global cooperation in research between industrialised countries, manifested in large increases in copublication between Europe and other regions, increasing focus on single global facilities in big science and the emergence of global cooperative programmes. Motivations for cooperation are examined, distinguishing between direct benefits to the research and indirect strategic, economic or political benefits. Barriers include the growing significance of competitiveness issues and a mismatch of institutions. It is concluded that formal arrangements are beginning to catch up with the very substantial extent of `bottom-up' global cooperation. Issues are raised for European programmes including the nature of a European platform within global alliances, the strategic position of Europe in the broader pattern of scientific relations and the impracticability of maintaining programmes with restricted access to foreign participants.

The efforts by policymakers to help firms become more innovative have created a strong desire to know which policies work. This has placed high expectations upon evaluation. The development of evaluation in this sphere has mirrored the evolution of policy, beginning with a focus on large-scale collaborative technology programmes and gradually moving towards an examination of measures seeking to enhance the environment for innovation. Evaluations in this field may be divided into those assessing direct and indirect financial support for research and design and those addressing opportunity-enhancing innovation policies such as technology transfer networks. Several tensions and challenges for evaluation are identified, including the lack of comparative and systemic innovation policy evaluations. Evaluation needs to follow the same adaptive learning approach as innovation policy itself.

How far are the governance arrangements for the research and innovation systems fit for purpose in meeting the grand challenges we are confronted by? In the past the cloak of “coordination” has been used to disguise the superficiality of most joined-up or integrated approaches to research and innovation policies, while in reality these remained the domain of dedicated agencies and ministries. But wider socioeconomic challenges do not fall squarely within the domain of sectoral ministries (often several at a time) – they also require horizontal connectivity – across regions and nations, through multiple levels of governance, and across ministries. While achieving these connections is beginning to be recognised as a legitimate and necessary goal, we still lack truly effective means of getting political buy-in beyond the rhetorical level to a broad-based innovation policy. There is bound to be resistance to a more horizontal and cross-cutting innovation policy. To overcome this will mean bypassing policy lock-ins and to involve more and other stakeholders, using better mechanisms than are presently employed. The chapter asks whether the economic crisis in Europe creates an opportunity for the seismic levels of change in governance that may be required.

Technology foresight at a national level has emerged as a prominent instrument of technology policy during the first half of the 1990s. Programmes of this type are not generally seeking to identify future scientific breakthroughs (the so-called ‘picking winners’ approach). Rather, they are concerned to put in place the infrastructure necessary to recognize and exploit such opportunities when they do emerge. Given the lead times necessary for technological development this necessitates forming views about the future. In this article, the experience to date of one of the most comprehensive national initiatives, the UK Technology Foresight Programme is examined.

The United Kingdom has been carrying out a major exercise in the field of Technology Foresight, involving fifteen panels engaged in wide consultation about the future of their areas. The objectives of the Programme are to help set priorities for publicly funded science and technology and to create new working partnerships between science and industry. The paper describes the process by which members of the panels, and those whom they subsequently consulted, were identified. A survey-based technique known as co-nomination was employed, whereby respondents were asked to identify suitable participants and at the same time to profile their own expertise. The process was repeated with those nominated. The patterns of expertise thus revealed are themselves of interest and are used to construct a map of the inter-relationship between the fields covered by the panels.

This paper describes findings on the management of collaboration arising from an evaluation of the participation of the UK in the EUREKA programme. The principle issues addressed in the paper are the origins and motivations for collabration, the roles played by participants of different types and the significance of collaboration for project outcomes. The paper concludes that complementarity between partners in the key motivation for collabration. Complementarity may lie in different dimensions, matching different types of technical expertise or technical and market expertise. Vertical relationships, between users and suppliers, energed as being particularly important in EUREKA projects and frequently formed the initial basis for the collaborative application. The most important overall finding was that partnerships were genuinely interpendent, in part because of their foundation in complementarity. Successful collaborative structures were those which were sufficiently robust to accommodate the inevitable...

The European Union's Framework Programmes for research and technological development have been subject to a variety of evaluative activities over the past 10 years. These have included evaluations by panels, studies of impacts upon individual Member States, horizontal or issue-based evaluations and high-level reviews by, or on behalf of the principal stakeholders. This article reviews this experience, covering issues such as the interaction between peer review panels and supporting studies by evaluation specialists, the difficulties of establishing comparability across diverse national R&D systems, and the problems involved in addressing the Programmes' higher-level goals such as enhancing the competitiveness of European industry. The different perspectives taken by the main stakeholders, the Commission, the Member States and the European Parliament, are noted. In the light of recent proposals to develop the evaluation of the Framework Programme, conclusions are drawn on a series of topics. In particular, it is argued that the broader strategies of actors, and of the Union itself should be included within the scope of evaluations. In the final section recommendations are made on ways in which evaluation may be further institutionalized in order to increase the use made of it.

The papers in this issue provide a clear picture of the practice of research evaluation in the European Union. Experiences differ as would be expected given the diversity of systems in which evaluation is carried out. While programme evaluations are becoming more routine, institutional reforms have created a demand for a new kind of evaluation. This includes a strategic orientation which is likely to become a regular feature of more important programme evaluations. Trends towards infrastructural innovation policies will inevitably lead to an increased demand for evaluations of initiatives in this sphere. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

The Joint Council Initiative in the UK was set up to encourage interdisciplinary research between cognitive science and human computer interaction. This evaluates the Initiative and the success of the collaboration across disciplines. A lack of clarity of objectives and definitions in programme design is a severe restriction on the ability to evaluate achievement. The solution in this case was threefold: to develop a personal perspective on interdisciplinarity; to examine the internal consistency of the definitions used; and to collect empirical information on a broad range of indicators, supplemented by case studies. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

The precise meaning of competitiveness is examined. Some basic concepts are reviewed and from these is chosen a relative concept which must be measured dynamically. The paper then discusses the application of this concept to the evaluation of R&D programmes, in particular the EC Framework Programme. Practical guidance is provided. How firms expect to enhance their competitiveness must be understood by the evaluator. Technology transfer within and beyond projects is significant. The results of an evaluation must be relevant to current decisions if it is to be useful to policymakers.

There is tension between the demand for measurement of the return on R&D as an investment, and the ability of current approaches to supply such measures. A common interest in this problem brings together a number of interest groups as evidenced by the membership of the SPEAR Network. In this paper we attempt to define the scope of the evaluation of the socio-economic effects of R&D and to locate within this a number of important studies, including both those reported in the literature and those coming to light through the Network. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.