Institutionalising Performance Management in R&D Organisations: Key Concepts and Aspects

Yawson, Robert M. and Sutherland, Alistair J. (2010): Institutionalising Performance Management in R&D Organisations: Key Concepts and Aspects. Published in: Journal of Social Sciences , Vol. 22, No. 3 (2010): pp. 163-172.

Abstract

In an era in which accountability, cost effectiveness and impact orientation are at premium, Research and Technological Organisations are under pressure not only to improve their performance but also to be able to demonstrate this improvement. This pressure is particularly hard-felt by agricultural research organisations, where funders’ perceptions of a lack of evidence for the uptake and impact of products and services are raising questions about their efficacy and existence. Such pressures can be traced back to several factors, including changes in management trends and the growing scarcity of donor funding in the face of proliferation of Non-Governmental Organisations. These pressures have focussed R&D Organisations attention on the need to develop monitoring and evaluation systems that are capable of ensuring and demonstrating improved performance. In recognising that the developmental impact of research is notoriously difficult to assess, the paper is predicated on the belief that indicators of organisational uptake can provide reliable proxies, or ‘leading’ indicators of development impact. The background to this paper is a DFID-funded pilot action research project that ran between September 2001 and December 2002. The project aimed to adapt and test a novel approach to performance management within three agricultural research and development agencies. The key concepts and aspects of this novel approach and similar work done are discussed.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Performance Management; Impact; Evaluation; DFID
• Subjects: D - Microeconomics > D2 - Production and Organizations; L - Industrial Organization > L1 - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance; H - Public Economics > H4 - Publicly Provided Goods; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O1 - Economic Development; L - Industrial Organization > L2 - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior; L - Industrial Organization > L3 - Nonprofit Organizations and Public Enterprise; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights; P - Economic Systems > P4 - Other Economic Systems

References

CGIAR 1997. Analysis of Comprehensive ex post Studies of Impacts of International Agricultural Research Centres. Methodological Review and Synthesis of Existing ex post Impact Assessments. Report 2. Washington: Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research.

Horton D (Ed.) 2001. Learning about Capacity Development through Evaluation. Perspectives and Observations from a Collaborative Network of National and International Organizations and Donor Agencies. The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research.

Horton D, Mackay R, Anderson A, Dupleich L 2000. Evaluation capacity development in planning, monitoring, and evaluation. A case from agricultural research. ISNAR Research Report, 17. The Hague: International Service for National AgriculturalResearch.

Kaplan RS, Norton DP 1992. The Balanced Scorecard - Measures That Drive Performance. Harvard Business Review, 70: 71-79.

Kaplan RS, Norton DP 1996. Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into; Harvard Business School Press Book; Product Number: 6513.

Kaplan RS, Norton DP 2000. The Strategy Focused Organization: How Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment. Harvard Business School Press Book.

Lusthaus C, Anderson G, Murphy E 1995. Institutional Assessment. A Framework for Strengthening Organizational Capacity for IDRC’s Research Partners. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.

McCalla A 1999. The global agricultural research challenge. Meeting the challenge – making and assessing impact (with special focus on Africa). Keynote address to the ECART/ASARECA/CTA Workshop on Impact Assessment of Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa, Entebbe,Uganda, November 1999.

National Partnership for Reinventing Government 1999. Balancing Measures: Best Practices in Performance Management. http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/index.htm

PEA 1999. Guide to a Balanced Scorecard Performance Management Methodology: Moving from Performance Measurement to Performance Management. USA: Office of Procurement and Assistance Management, US Department of Energy.

Rohm H 2002. Improved Public Sector Results with A Balanced Scorecard: Nine Steps To Success. US Foundation for Development Measurement. Washington DC.

Schrol L 2001. Presentation on the Local Rural Development Programme Performance Measurement System using the Balanced Scorecard. Ramallah, West Bank: United Nations Development Programme/PAPP.

Smith DR, Sutherland AJ 2002. Institutionalizing Impact Orientation: Building a Performance Management Approach that Enhances the Impact Orientation of Research Organizations. Chatham, UK: Natural Resources Institute.

Sutherland AJ 2003. Broadening the Monitoring and Evaluation of Research: Key Concepts And Aspects In: Yawson RM, Sutherland AJ, Amoa-Awua WKA 2000. (Eds.) Broadening M&E within Reforming National Agricultural Systems: Proceedings of the Policy Dialogue Forum on Performance Management. CSIR, Accra, Ghana

World Bank 1999. Annual review of development effectiveness, Annex 6, managing for results. World Bank 1999 Annual Report. Washington DC: World Bank, Operations Evaluation Department.

Yawson RM, Amoa-Awua WK, Sutherland AJ, Smith DR, Noamesi SK 2006. Developing a Performance Measurement Framework to Enhance the Impact Orientation of the Food Research Institute, Ghana. R&D Management, 36(2): 161 – 172