Evaluation of the Co-location of Science Research Centres on University Campuses
Note: Taken from the Evaluation Plan October 2005
Evaluation Issue: Relevance
| Evaluation Questions | Indicators | Data Sources/ Methodology |
Evaluation Issue: Relevance Is the co-location mechanism consistent with organizational priorities? | ||
| 1. Do the science undertakings, mandate (planned), and results (realized) of co-location support the CESF through the departmental strategic outcomes? | Workplans (planned) and annual reports (realized) connect with departmental strategic outcomes, which link to the CESF Presence of a clear, documented and widely shared mandate | Document review (workplans, annual reports, project reports, OPPs, CESF pillar decks, EC results structure) Interviews (I1: research centre management) Document review (mandate) |
Evaluation Issue: Success
| Evaluation Questions | Indicators | Data Sources/ Methodology |
Evaluation Issue: Success Is the co-location mechanism meeting its intended outcomes? | ||
2. Is there evidence of achievement of immediate outcomes? Increased access to students Increased access to knowledge Increased access to specialized facilities Increased leveraging of resources | Increase in the # of students (undergraduate, masters, PhD) working at the research centre (coop/grant work) Increase in joint undertaking with university staff (e.g., seminar, report, publication) Access to university lab/equip Improvement of research centre (lab/equip) Increase in the amount of grant money (NSERC, CFCAS) | Interviews (I1) Document review (data on students) Interviews (I2: university faculty) Document review (agreements, lease, facility/equipment plans) Document review (grant approvals) |
3. Is there evidence of achievement of intermediate outcomes? Increased synergy Increased scientific capacity | Increase in the # of peer reviewed scientific publications (university and wider community) Increase in the # of EC staff that become adjunct professors (university) Increase in joint undertaking with university staff (e.g., seminar, report, publication) Increase in national/ international presence in research area Expert opinion of impact of co-location on scientific capacity and excellence | Document review (publication list) Bibliometric analysis Document review (applications/responses for adjunct professorships) Interviews (I1), (I2) and (I3: National or International leaders in research area) Academic media scan |
4. Is there evidence of achievement of final outcomes? Scientific research that supports departmental strategic and intermediate outcomes and OPG results | Scientific research used in policy development Response to departmental requests on specific research topics More and better scientific outputs linked to departmental needs | Interviews (I1) (I4: EC policy staff) Document review (requests for/responses to information, annual reports, OPPs, OPGs, EC results structure) |
| 5. Were there any unintended outcomes? | Presence of unintended outcomes Management actions and learning from unintended outcomes | Interviews (I1) |
Evaluation Issue: Cost-Effectiveness
| Evaluation Questions | Indicators | Data Sources/ Methodology |
Evaluation Issue: Cost-Effectiveness Are the most appropriate and efficient means being used to achieve the outcomes? | ||
6. Is the co-location of research centres on university campuses a cost-effective mechanism? Relocation of the facility Operating costs | Cost to build, relocate, and operate research centres (on/off university campus) | Document review (TB Subs, budgets, option analysis documents, financial reports) |
Evaluation Issue: Design & Delivery
| Evaluation Questions | Indicators | Data Sources/ Methodology |
Evaluation Issue: Design and Delivery Are there alternative design and delivery options to physical co-location? | ||
| 7. What other types of collaborative arrangements (with universities) exist at EC? | Positioning co-location arrangements with other types of EC-university collaborative arrangements that do not involve physical co-location | Document review (other collaborative arrangements) |
| 8. What are the best practices and lessons learned from the co-location process? | Identified learnings from the co-location process that could be utilized in future co-location decision making processes | Interviews (I1) and (I2) |
- Date Modified: