Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Leduc Phipps Poetz: Development of indicators for measurement at each stage of Knowledge Translation from Research to Impact

2,109 views

Published on

Renee Leduc, Program Officer at Canada's NCE Secretariat presents on indicators, reporting and measurement for the NCE program with respect to Knowledge Translation, Commercialization and Socio-Economic benefit to Canadians (otherwise referred to as Knowledge and Technology Exchange and Exploitation KTEE). These slides represent part 1 of a 2 part co-presentation with NeuroDevNet NCE's KT Core. There is an accompanying handout that helps NCEs work through linking goals with outputs, outcomes and relates to the 2nd handout called "anatomy of an indicator" that helps users develop indicators.

Published in: Government & Nonprofit
  • Be the first to comment

Leduc Phipps Poetz: Development of indicators for measurement at each stage of Knowledge Translation from Research to Impact

  1. 1. Renée Leduc, MSc – Program Officer, NCE Secretariat David Phipps, PhD, MBA – Lead, KT Core Anneliese Poetz, PhD – Manager, KT Core Mobilizing Science Knowledge and Research: NCE Sharing of Best Practices Symposium Thursday January 29, 2015 11:00am – 12:00pm (Sable ABCD) Halifax, Nova Scotia
  2. 2. Focus • Learning Outcome: Three high-level questions for mapping your co-production KM pathway • Story: My experience working on the KM part of the Annual Reporting with the KM Networks • Audience: KM networks, NCE networks, researchers and HQP doing KM
  3. 3. Progress Reporting • Why track performance? –Monitoring, evaluation and feedback –Advocacy, accountability and analysis
  4. 4. NCE Monitoring Committee • Is the network on track to deliver on what was committed ?
  5. 5. Tools √ Annual Progress Report Program selection criteria √ Dashboard Graphic representation of key performance indicators √ (NCE only) List of publications Indicator for research collaboration, quality and relevance √ (KM only) KM Performance Metric (KM PM) Snapshot of KM performance and impact
  6. 6. Table – KM Performance Metrics • KM activities-outputs  –Stakeholders who were engaged –End-users who benefitted –Outcomes that ensued
  7. 7. KM PM: Not a Perfect Process • Not always a true representation of KM network performance and impact • The timeframe of a fiscal year can be restrictive
  8. 8. KM PM: Not a Perfect Process (cont’d) • Some data are estimates • Not necessarily user- friendly • Repetitive and time consuming to compile
  9. 9. • Measuring – Sample choice – Tools, equipment, experimental design – Results, Discussion, Conclusion…and the ? • What do we want to do with KM? • What is KM really all about?
  10. 10. It’s all about Outcome = Change = Benefit = Influence • What • Who • How
  11. 11. What changed? • Behaviour • Practice • Policy • Research • Products Policy created Capacity established Processes, practices effected Patent License Copyright Products or Processes Other… NCE PMF literature Phipps, D.J., Cummings, J. Pepler, D., Craig, W. and Cardinal, S. (2014) Mapping the community impacts of research through knowledge mobilization. Submitted to J. Community Engagement and Scholarship
  12. 12. What was the benefit? Health-Wellness benefit*** Media and public awareness** Vulnerability addressed** New research questions** Social benefit*** Economic benefit*** Environmental benefit** Technological benefit* *NCE PMF literature ** Phipps, D.J., Cummings, J. Pepler, D., Craig, W. and Cardinal, S. (2014) Mapping the community impacts of research through knowledge mobilization. Submitted to J. Community Engagement and Scholarship *** overlap
  13. 13. Who benefitted and how? • Target end users • Unintended end users • Canadians in general • International community (if applicable)
  14. 14. How was the change achieved? • KP & KU: who, why, and how • Activity (action taken or work performed) • Output (products or results of the activity) • Measure activity and output quality as they relate to KP, KU, EU: – Relevance, usefulness – Reach, accessibility – Use
  15. 15. Where We’re Going From Here (Annual Reporting – KM PM) • Outcome driven • Link to network PMF • More accurate qualitative and quantitative data • Less complex and restrictive process
  16. 16. Where Do You Go from Here? • What have you committed to this year? Over the life of the network? • What is the change you want to make? What is the baseline? What are your outcome drivers? • Quality assurance: relevance, usefulness, accessibility, reach and use • Put it in a performance measurement framework

×