|
Bridging from Project Case Study to Portfolio Analysis in a Public R&D Program
A Framework for Evaluation and Introduction
Rosalie Ruegg
GCR 06-891 April 2006
View Adobe PDF version of report. |
Contents
Abstract
Acknowledgements
Executive Summary
Introduction
Part I. A Framework Linking Evaluation of Individual Projects to Assessment of a Portfolio of Projects
1.0 Developing the Project-to-Portfolio Approach
2.0 Pros and Cons of Rooting the Approach in Case Study
3.0 ATP's Development and Use of the Project-to-Portfolio Approach
Part II. Development and Application of the Composite Performance Rating System (CPRS)
4.0 Prior Practice Using Composite Ratings
4.1 Composite Scoring by U.S. Education Department to Assess if Participants Meet Regulatory Requirements
4.2 Composite Scoring Proposed to Improve Healthcare Performance in OECD Countries
5.0 CPRS Development: First Steps
6.0 Specifying Indicator Variables for Use in the CPRS Formulation
7.0 Applying Weighting Algorithms to the Selected Indicator Variables and Calculating Scores
8.0 Critique of CPRS
9.0 Summary and Conclusions
About the Economic Assessment Office ................ Inside front cover
About the Advanced Technology Program ............. Inside back cover
References
Figures
Figure 1. Multi-Tiered Analytical Capability
Figure 2. Distribution of Completed ATP Projects by CPRS
Tables
Table 1. Eight-Step Process in Developing Project-to-Portfolio Evaluation Framework
Table 2. Six Products From Applying the Eight-Step Process
Table 3. Advantages and Disadvantages of Case Study Methodology
Table 4. ATP Goals at Different Stages of the Project Life Cycle
Table 5. Calculation of Raw Scores for Knowledge Creation
Table 6. Sensitivity of Knowledge Creation to Changes in Indicator Values
Table 7. Calculation of Raw Scores for Knowledge Dissemination
Table 8. Sensitivity of Knowledge Dissemination to Changes in Indicator Values
Table 9. Calculation of Raw Scores for Commercialization
Table 10. Sensitivity of Commercialization Scores to Changes in Indicator Values
Table 11. Sensitivity Testing of Composite Scores and Star Ratings to Variations in Values of Indicator Variables
Table 12. Four-Star Project (Engineering Animation, Inc.)
Table 13. Zero-Star Project (Hampshire Instruments, Inc.)
|