Evaluation Criteria Ppt Final

715 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
715
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
36
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Evaluation Criteria Ppt Final

  1. 1. Evaluation Criteria FITT (Fostering Interregional Exchange in ICT Technology Transfer) www.FITT-for-Innovation.eu
  2. 2. Criteria for evaluation of transfer projects  The described practice is designed to assist in the preliminary assessment of research-grounded technology projects for their commercialization potential in the realm of technology transfer.  The process of assessing research projects is necessitated by the high failure rate, and resulting high cost, of technologies either prior to reaching the market or once in the market.  The covered Evaluation Criteria are intended to provide guidance for assessing an idea, a technology or a research project, at an early-stage of technology transfer (thus prior to product development). 2 | 02.2010 Evaluation criteria
  3. 3. The evaluation process  Project evaluation may take place at various stages • Early-stage (proof-of-concept “maturation” towards technology transfer) • Pre-incubation  Incubation  Our focus is Early Stage Project Evaluation, which may appear • In a continuous manner (or at regular intervals) • Based on a CFP (Call For Proposal, typically once per year)  Such early stage evaluation covers : • Evaluation criteria • A process for the application of these criteria, including the structure/organization of the evaluation committee  The current practice focuses on recommended Evaluation Criteria 3 | 02.2010 Evaluation criteria
  4. 4. An illustration of the evaluation process Incubation entry Preincubation Early-stage eval eval entry eval n n Incubatio Pre-incubatio Research Development Proof-of-concept Market Licensing Process : Evaluation criteria Aaaaaaaaa Bbbbbbbbbb Bbbbbbbbbb Cccccc Ddddd Eeeee Aaaaaaaaa Bbbbbbbbbb Bbbbbbbbbb Cccccc Ddddd Eeeee • Description of project to be evaluated (document) Aaaaaaaaa Bbbbbbbbbb Bbbbbbbbbb Cccccc Ddddd Eeeee Aaaaaaaaa Bbbbbbbbbb Bbbbbbbbbb Cccccc Ddddd Eeeee Aaaaaaaaa Bbbbbbbbbb Bbbbbbbbbb Cccccc Ddddd Eeeee Aaaaaaaaa Bbbbbbbbbb Bbbbbbbbbb Cccccc Ddddd Eeeee Aaaaaaaaa Bbbbbbbbbb Bbbbbbbbbb Cccccc Ddddd Eeeee Aaaaaaaaa Bbbbbbbbbb Bbbbbbbbbb Cccccc Ddddd Eeeee Aaaaaaaaa Bbbbbbbbbb Bbbbbbbbbb Cccccc Ddddd Eeeee Aaaaaaaaa Bbbbbbbbbb Bbbbbbbbbb Cccccc Ddddd Eeeee Aaaaaaaaa Bbbbbbbbbb Bbbbbbbbbb Cccccc Ddddd Eeeee Aaaaaaaaa Bbbbbbbbbb Bbbbbbbbbb Cccccc Ddddd Eeeee Aaaaaaaaa Bbbbbbbbbb Bbbbbbbbbb Cccccc Ddddd Eeeee Aaaaaaaaa Bbbbbbbbbb Bbbbbbbbbb Cccccc Ddddd Eeeee Aaaaaaaaa Bbbbbbbbbb Bbbbbbbbbb Cccccc Ddddd Eeeee • Evaluation criteria Aaaaaaaaa Bbbbbbbbbb Bbbbbbbbbb Cccccc Ddddd Eeeee Aaaaaaaaa Bbbbbbbbbb Bbbbbbbbbb Cccccc Ddddd Eeeee Aaaaaaaaa Bbbbbbbbbb Bbbbbbbbbb Cccccc Ddddd Eeeee Aaaaaaaaa Bbbbbbbbbb Bbbbbbbbbb Cccccc Ddddd Eeeee Aaaaaaaaa Bbbbbbbbbb Bbbbbbbbbb Cccccc Ddddd Eeeee Aaaaaaaaa Bbbbbbbbbb Bbbbbbbbbb Cccccc Ddddd EeeeeBbbbbbbbbb Bbbbbbbbbb Cccccc Ddddd Eeeee Aaaaaaaaa Bbbbbbbbbb Bbbbbbbbbb Cccccc Ddddd Eeeee Aaaaaaaaa Bbbbbbbbbb Bbbbbbbbbb Cccccc Ddddd Eeeee Aaaaaaaaa Bbbbbbbbbb Bbbbbbbbbb Cccccc Ddddd Eeeee Aaaaaaaaa Bbbbbbbbbb Bbbbbbbbbb Cccccc Ddddd Eeeee Aaaaaaaaa Bbbbbbbbbb Bbbbbbbbbb Cccccc Ddddd Eeeee Aaaaaaaaa Bbbbbbbbbb Bbbbbbbbbb Cccccc Ddddd Eeeee Aaaaaaaaa Bbbbbbbbbb Bbbbbbbbbb Cccccc Ddddd Eeeee • Jury (evaluation committee) Aaaaaaaaa Bbbbbbbbbb Bbbbbbbbbb Cccccc Ddddd Eeeee Aaaaaaaaa Bbbbbbbbbb Bbbbbbbbbb Cccccc Ddddd Eeeee Aaaaaaaaa Bbbbbbbbbb Bbbbbbbbbb Cccccc Ddddd Eeeee 4 | 02.2010 Evaluation criteria
  5. 5. Coverage/definition of evaluation criteria  Evaluation criteria should cover three main aspects of a project • Technical aspects • Market assessment • Team considerations  Evaluation criteria should be defined and published in advance in order to allow the evaluated teams to adapt to the process • Evaluation criteria will be used to establish the overall process, evaluation documents and the selection committee  Evaluation criteria may be used by the evaluation committee to • Allocate funds/resources to selected projects • Provide consultancy to the project team (for example, to coach the team on aspects considered as “weak”) 5 | 02.2010 Evaluation criteria
  6. 6. Evaluation criteria  Possible evaluation criteria • Lots of possible evaluation methods/criteria are mentioned in the literature • Several possible groups of criteria : Originality of the innovation Profile of the inventor Positive ROI/NPV calculations Scientific return/opportunities for the laboratory Business opportunity Venture value Project feasibility Market opportunities/threats Regulatory constraints  Potential users IP (protection issues, prior art) Business model  Scientific relevance of the project Lab support Financial return Team aspects Realism of the announced plan Social & economical impact  Risk management Potential applications Production issues  6 | 02.2010 Evaluation criteria
  7. 7. Focus on first-stage evaluation criteria  Most important criteria for first-stage evaluation Positive ROI/NPV calculations Originality of the innovation Profile of the inventor Venture value Scientific  return/opportunities  Business opportunity for the laboratory Regulatory constraints  Project feasibility Market opportunities/threats Business model  Potential users IP (protection issues, prior art) Financial return Scientific  relevance  of  the  Lab support project Social & economical impact  Team aspects Realism of the announced plan Production issues  Risk management Potential applications Deemed premature for 1st stage evaluation 7 | 02.2010 Evaluation criteria
  8. 8. The DIGITEO example - Global positioning  The OMTE checklist is used for maturation projects 8 | 02.2010 Evaluation criteria
  9. 9. Timing of the annual call for proposal → March : launch of call for proposal/deadline for submissions Long → April : preselection of 10 projects selection → May: coaching by Digiteo’s marketing team process → June/July : final application, oral présentation, deliberation, final decision → September Digiteo’s CFP (OMTE) 9 | 02.2010 Evaluation criteria
  10. 10. From proposal to selection  ~ 10 proposals  Preselection classification performed by Digiteo’s scientific committee and marketing staff  Coaching : work on the three components technology/marketing/IP  submit presentation for the final selection  Selection process : • External experts (technology transfer specialists from : industry cluster, incubator, Paris region, OSEO innovation fund, chamber of commerce, etc.) • Digiteo’s technology transfer committee • Formal selection announced by Digiteo’s steering committee  5 projects selected (budget constraints) 10 | 02.2010 Evaluation criteria
  11. 11. Selection steps 4. Final decision DIGITEO’s Steering Committee Technology Scientific Transfer Committee Expert Panel Committee 1. Scientific relevance 2. TT potential 3. Recommandations Technical differentiation Value creation 11 | 02.2010 Evaluation criteria
  12. 12. Digiteo’s evaluation checklist 12 | 02.2010 Evaluation criteria
  13. 13. DIGITEO – Method/criteria  Evaluation method : • Evaluation of the applications according to the 12 criteria • Individual evaluators may apply assessment scores from 1 to 3 (3 being the highest)  Evaluation criteria used for the OMTE call for projects  « Product/technology » aspects  Originality/uniqueness and scientific relevance, project feasibility and opportunities created for the laboratory.  « Market » aspects  Ongoing research contracts and IP related to the project, first applications and users considered.  « Team » aspects  Support of the laboratories in the process, project manager identified to manage the project, realism of the planning proposed and evaluation of the risks by the applicants. 13 | 02.2010 Evaluation criteria
  14. 14. DIGITEO – « Product » criteria  1. Originality of the innovation  Originality/uniqueness in comparison with state-of-the-art ?  Definition of the future « product » ?  Positioning compared to competitors ?  2. Scientific relevance of the project  Compatibility with the research themes covered by Digiteo ?  Scientific excellence in the field?  Degree of scientific maturation ( is the technology close to a « product ») ?  3. Project Feasibility  Technical feasibility of the project?  Feasibility of the planning, with regard to a transfer?  Description of the transfer model envisaged (transfer to an industrial partner / creation of start- up) ?  4. Scientific opportunities created for the laboratory  Consequences of the development on the scientific activities of the lab ?  Future impact of the project on the lab’s strategy ?  Impact on the external communications of the lab? 14 | 02.2010 Evaluation criteria
  15. 15. DIGITEO – « Market » criteria  5. Ongoing research contracts  Ongoing contracts with industrial partners?  Other contracts/ scientific activities ?  Since when? For how long?  6. Intellectual property (patents, know-how)  Background knowledge of the teams involved ?  Protection envisaged (foreground) for the new knowledge and software derivating from it;  Is an IP analysis requested by the teams (analysis of the prior art, patent landscape and « freedom to operate ») ?  7. First potential applications  Types/examples of applications ?  Value Proposition (solution to which problem) ?  Applications realised by which kind of company (software company, service provider) ?  8. First potential users  Existing and potential actors/ partners to target for the transfer?  Example of end-user for the integrated solution ?  Draft definition of the targeted market (size, segmentation, competitors) ? 15 | 02.2010 Evaluation criteria
  16. 16. DIGITEO – « Team » criteria  9. Support of the laboratories  Support of the laboratories involved ?  Balance between the teams involved (complementarity, synergy) ?  Common commitment to a real transfer ?  10. Project manager in charge  Profile of the project manager and implication in the project ?  Capability of managing all aspects of the project, keeping with the transfer objective?  Motivation to handle the 3 aspects : technical, IP, marketing ?  11. Realism of the planning Realism of the planning with regards to the 3 aspects:  Technical  IP  Marketing  12. Evaluation/ consideration of the risks Identification and management of the risks :  Technical  IP  Marketing 16 | 02.2010 Evaluation criteria
  17. 17. DIGITEO - Assessment  Useful tool to be used as a checklist throughout the evaluation process  The final selection has to include the assessment of the presentation made in front of the jury. Grade given by the jury is based for 50% on written application and 50% on the oral presentation.  The jury should include a majority of external experts  Final selection : classification/ranking of the presented projects (top 5  selected)  Some « Digiteo specifics » not to be considered for a generic checklist 17 | 02.2010 Evaluation criteria
  18. 18. Pros & Cons PROs CONs • This practice attempts to formalize • Only a selected number of methods that are already in use criteria are highlighted (most of the time on an ad hoc basis) • Some criteria may need to be further developed • The methodology and associated tools (call for proposal, criteria, etc.) are readily available and can be adapted to each individual case 18 | 02.2010 Evaluation criteria
  19. 19. Why ? • Methodology developed by Digiteo in order to manage the incoming flow of technology transfer proposals • Need for a consistent set of criteria for all steps of evaluation process, communicated transparently to all involved partners : project teams, internal Digiteo evaluators, “technology transfer coaches” and external experts • Without this methodology, involved parties would get the impression that projects might be evaluated/selected based on obscure reasons. This would leave the doors open for debate, accusations for “unfair competition” and backstage lobbying 19 | 02.2010 Evaluation criteria
  20. 20. Why/impact ?  Impact : Why is it a good practice? • The Digiteo community judges this approach transparent, fair and clearly communicated • We may recommend this approach based on our own experience 20 | 02.2010 Evaluation criteria
  21. 21. Outcome  What happened after the implementation : • The approach turned out as expected  Final selection (with external experts) is based on relative ranking among the presented projects  The scoring system is only used for individual evaluation purposes • However, you also have to manage those projects that were not finally selected  Debrief the teams that were not selected  Clearly communicate the reasons for not being selected  Focus on things to be improved (and how to improve them)  Encourage them to apply again with an enhanced proposal 21 | 02.2010 Evaluation criteria
  22. 22. Outcome – plans for the future  Plans for the future? • The approach should be further developed/detailed :  Definition of terms  Explanation on how to apply each of the listed criteria (with some examples) 22 | 02.2010 Evaluation criteria
  23. 23. Suggested Readings  Link to code book • Technology development/maturation • Proof of concept • (Opportunity) assessment  Link to related websites OMTE call for proposal and projects selected during previous editions: http://www.digiteo.fr/Digiteo_OMTE 23 | 02.2010 Evaluation criteria

×