|
15-16 September 2008
Workshop Programme
Day 1: Assessing Priority-Setting Exercises: Lessons and Good Practices
Welcome and Opening
• Mr. Dirk PILAT, Head of Science and Technology Policy Division, OECD
Keynote presentation: Key Issues in Setting Priorities for S&T
• How can policy structures be designed to ensure coherence in the process of priority setting?
• How to deal with the rise in the number of quantitative/indicator-based and consultative mechanisms for setting priorities?
• In particular, how to ensure methodologies are sound and how to select the right tools for setting priorities in different contexts (e.g. priorities for big science or global challenges, versus priorities for basic longer-term research)?
Chair : Mr. Dirk PILAT, Head of Science and Technology Policy Division, OECD
• Mr. Rémi BARRÉ, Responsable du Département des études et de la prospective, Ministère de la Recherche, France
Priority setting for S&T : addressing the complexity of a simple notion – a case studies approach
Session 1: Setting Priorities for S&T at National Level: New Concepts and Rationales
• How to set priorities to meet economic and social goals while avoiding “shortermism” and maintaining capacity for longer-term research?
• Should priorities for research be systematically set according to social and economic objectives or should countries set them according to system requirements?
• How to canvass support and involvement of various stakeholders while maintaining focus and accountability?
• How far can the priority process by “democratised”? Who should be involved?
• How to set thematic priorities (transport, energy) that cut across different ministerial portfolios, research institutions and funding agencies?
General Discussion
Chair: Ms. Jacqueline ALLAN, Principal Administrator, STI/STP, OECD
• Mr. Wolfgang POLT, Head of Vienna Office of Joanneum Research
Institute for Technology and Regional Policy, Austria
• Ms. Helena ACHESON, Head of Division, Enterprise Policy, Surveys and Communications, Forfás, Ireland
• Strategic Policy Intelligence - setting priorities and evaluating impacts – the Irish experience
• Mr. Victor VAN RIJ, Senior Advisor, Consultative Committee of Sector Councils for Research and Development (COS), Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, Netherlands – Influencing the research agenda through horizon scanning
• Mr. Gury ZILKHA, Senior Economic Advisor, National Council for Research and Development, Israel
Session 2: Operationalising National S&T Priorities: Lessons from Priority Setting Exercises
• The need for efficiency in the process of priority-setting in order to improve impacts of public investment in R&D on “national competitiveness “and societal challenges (e.g. poverty alleviation, health).
• How can the use of (ex ante) evaluations for priority setting be improved?
• What has been the impact of priority setting on the scientific and technological specialisation pattern of countries?
• How to adjust research funding, infrastructure and human resource capacities in light of new or a shift in thematic priorities?
• How to better monitor and assess the implementation of priorities? What are the data requirements?
Chair: Mr. Pierre VERDOODT, Office for Policy Research and Foresight Studies, Department of Economy, Science and Innovation, Flemish Government, Belgium
• Mr. Anders HOFF, Head of Section, Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation, Ministry of Science,Technology and Innovation, Denmark
• Mr. Robert KERGER, Ministère de la Culture, de l'Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche, Département "Recherche et Innovation," Luxemburg
• Mr. Wolfgang HEIN, Deputy Director for Funding of research and technology, Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology, Austria
Session 3. International Dimensions in Priority Setting for S&T
• To what extent are national priority setting exercises increasingly internationalised? (e.g. what is the role of foreign experts, or use of international benchmarking indicators).
• How to set national priorities in light of global or supranational priority trend setting (e.g. the European Research Area initiative, Global agendas such as Millennium Development, G8, and Kyoto)?
• To what extent does convergence of national research priorities and programmes lead to duplication, healthy competition or stronger co-operation?
• How to define joint priorities among different countries?
• What are the risks of “over-specialisation” at national level and the policy implications?
Chair: Mr. Pierre VERDOODT, Office for Policy Research and Foresight Studies, Department of Economy, Science and Innovation, Flemish Government, Belgium
• Mr. Jakob EDLER, Professor of Innovation Policy and Strategy, Research Director, Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, MBS, University of Manchester, UK
Designing internationalisation strategies and priorities - a conceptual development
• Mr. Jan LAROSSE, Policy Officer, European Commission, DG RTD, Directorate European Research Area: Knowledge-based Economy and
Mr. Dimitrios PONTIKAKIS, European Commission
The conceptual and policy issues of the debate on 'specialisation' in perspective of the ERA strategy
• Mr. Jeppe BJERG, Policy Analyst, Energy Technology Policy Division, International Energy Agency (IEA)
• Mr. Ken GUY, Director, WiseGuys Ltd.
Session 4: Concluding Panel and Discussion
• How can the OECD help countries improve their ability to set priorities, including through the use of evaluation and the dissemination of good practices?
• What areas/issues in priority setting require further research by the OECD?
Chair: Mr. Patrick VOCK, Chairman TIP, Switzerland
• Mr. Wolfgang POLT, Head of Vienna Office of Joanneum Research
Institute for Technology and Regional Policy, Austria
• Ms. Helena ACHESON, Head of Division, Enterprise Policy, Surveys and Communications, Forfás, Ireland (To be confirmed)
• Mr. Gury ZILKHA, Senior Economic Advisor, National Council for Research and Development, Israel
• Mr. Rémi BARRÉ, Responsable du Département des études et de la prospective, Ministère de la Recherche, France
Day 2: Architecture of Evaluation Systems: Findings from the TIP Case Studies
Keynote: The Theoretical and Conceptual Framework for Evaluation: Key Issues and Challenges
Chair: Mr. Patrick VOCK, Chairman TIP, Switzerland
• Mr. Jakob EDLER, Professor of Innovation Policy and Strategy, Research Director, Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, MBS, University of Manchester, UK
Evaluation of systems and portfolios: using existing evaluation to make sense at systems level
Session 1. Developing Institutional Capacity for Evaluation at National Level: Presentations from countries carrying out the TIP case studies
• What types of institutional structures are needed to support evaluation at a systems level?
• What should be the role of standalone agencies, of units within different agencies and what should be the linkages between them?
• What are good policy practices for the governance of such agencies (legislation and rules, internal, external)?
• What are the data system requirements for evaluation at various levels (programme, project, institution)?
• What are the skills needed for systems evaluation?
Chair: Mr. Eric HAUET, Vice-Chair, TIP, France
• Ms. Gro HELGESEN, Special Adviser, Research Council of Norway, Norway
Evaluating research fields/disciplines in Norway
• Mr. Markus KOSKENLINNA, Executive Director, Impact Analysis, Tekes, Finland
Framework for monitoring and impact analysis – The case of Tekes, Finland
France
• Ms. Leonie VAN DROOGE, Netherlands
Session 2. Implementation and Use of Evaluation in Policy Making
• How can evaluations be used to ensure the legitimacy of policy interventions and the relevance of evaluations?
• What is the role of ex-post evaluations in the implementation process?
• How to better link evaluation results with research budgeting mechanisms and decisions?
• To what extent do evaluations have an impact on the “policy mix” for research and innovation policies?
Chair: Mr. Michael KEENAN, Adminstrator, Science and Technology Policy Division, OECD
• Mr. Yasukuni OKUBO, Director for Technology Evaluation, Technology Evaluation Section, Industrial Science and Technology Policy and Environment Bureau, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Japan
Follow-Up Evaluation to Advance R&D Policy –Scenario from Long Term Vision
• Mr. Ilan PELED, Magnet Director, Israel
Evaluation of Israel R&D Plan – “Magneton” as a case study
Session 3. Wrap-Up and Next Steps
Chair: Mr. Patrick VOCK, Chairman TIP, Switzerland
•Mr. Mario CERVANTES, Science and Technology Policy Division, OECD
|
