Evaluation of FME Zero Emission Neighbourhoods in Smart Cities
The mid-term evaluation process of FME Zero Emission Neighbourhoods in Smart Cities involves self-evaluation, partner evaluation, and panel evaluation. The procedure includes scientific review, evaluation by scholars, and innovation assessment. Key documents like self-reports, progress reports, and project descriptions are pivotal for the evaluation. The evaluation focuses on decision-making for continued funding, feedback for improvements, assessing research quality, innovation potential, and organizational effectiveness. Success criteria, future plans, and collaboration strategies are essential aspects of the evaluation process.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
FME Zero Emission Neighbourhoods in Smart Cities Midtveisevalueringen 1
Midtveisevaluering Opplegg Egenevaluering Partnerevaluering (skjema sendt til Forskningsr det direkte fra partnerne i ZEN) Panelevaluering: Vitenskapelig gjennomgang Stipendiatgjennomgang Verdiskaping og innovasjon Rapport som sentrene kommenterer Innstilling til styret i Forskningsr det Styret i Forskningsr det beslutter 17. juni Behandling/oppf lging i FME Zero Emission Neighbourhoods in Smart Cities ZEN styre og generalforsamling 22.6 og 23.6 hvor resultatene presenteres og dr ftes 2
Midtveisevaluering av FME 2020-2021 Oversikt over innhold og prosess Januar 2020
4 Opplegget baseres p tidligere evalueringer av SFI og FME Internasjonale evalueringspaneler bes ker sentrene o To generalister - personer med godt kjennskap til organisering og ledelse av kompetansesentra o To fageksperter - personer med vitenskapelig kompetanse innenfor senterets tematiske omr de Sentrale dokumenter vil bl.a. v re o Egenrapportering (maler) o rsrapporter o Gjeldende prosjektbeskrivelse (vedlegg til kontrakt) o FME Suksesskriterier Gode, nyttige og l rende prosesser i sentrene ingen eksamen
5 Evalueringen har to hovedform l pkt. 12.8 FME- Krav og retningslinjer 1. Beslutning om videref ring av det enkelte senter i en samlet 8- rsperiode etter oppstart, eller avvikling etter 5 r. Portef ljestyret for energi, transport og lavutslipp fatter vedtak om videre drift eller avvikling av senteret. 2. Tilbakemelding til sentrene om forhold som kan eller b r forbedres i det videre arbeid.
6 Grunnlaget for evalueringen Basis for evalueringen er senterets arbeid s langt Bed mt ut fra de hovedkriteriene som ble benyttet ved utvelgelse av sentrene o Forskningen og potensial for innovasjon bed mt i forhold til prosjektbeskrivelsen for senteret og m lene med FME-ordningen o Organisering av virksomheten i senteret, samarbeidet mellom partnerne i senteret og kunnskapsoverf ring o Senterets samspill med vertsinstitusjonen og plass i dens forskningsstrategi Suksesskriteriene for FME Vurdere planer for siste tre r (evt. oppdatert prosjektbeskrivelse med budsjett) og plan for videref ring av virksomheten etter opph r av FME- bevilgningen.
Time schedule for the FME panel meetings in February/March 2021 Meeting with FME ZEN will be March 2nd 09:00 11:00 Part 1: Introduction and evaluation session (the session will be led by the scientific experts 11:00 11:10 11:10 12:10 Short break Part 2: Meeting with PhD students (the session will be led by the generalists/panel leader) 12:10 13:10 Lunch break 13:10 15:10 Part 3: Evaluation session (the session will be led by the generalists/panel leader)
Mte med evalueringspanelet 2.mars -deltakere Del 1 Gjennomgang vitenskapelig arbeid Del 2 M te med stipendiater Del 3- Gjennomgang av innovasjon, verdiskapning mv Tonje Frydenlund Carine Lausselet Tonje Frydenlund Arild Gustavsen Magnus Askeland Arild Gustavsen Terje Jacobsen se Lekang S rensen Terje Jacobsen Helge Bratteb Maria Justo Alonso Fredrik Shetelig Ann Kristin Kvellheim Johannes Brozovsky Siri Blakstad Hans Martin Mathiesen Stian Backe Svein Olav Munkeby Igor Sartori Matteo Faveo Inger Andresen Hanne Kauko Rakel Hunstad Judith Thomsen Eivind Selvig Thomas Berker Mads Mysen Ove Wolfgang Zdena Cervenka Christofer Skaar Ann Kristin Kvellheim Bendik Manum Helge Bratteb Kristin Fjellheim Asgeir Tomasgard Asgeir Tomasgard
Snitt alle 3,4 A. Has the participation in the centre influenced the R&D and Innovation strategy of your company? B. How do you evaluate the centre wrt: Level of competency of centre staff Project management of centre Communication between centre and partners The usefulness of research activities as seen from the company C. How has the centre's activities benefited the partner: Ideas for new products, processes and/or services New or improved methods/models developed by the centre Improvement of products, processes and/or services Strengthened knowledge base of the company Improved access to competent personnel and knowledge institutions Recruitment of qualified personnel Improved network to other partners 4,4 5,0 4,9 4,1 3,8 4,0 3,8 3,7 3,6 4,3 4,8 3,2 4,2 4,2 Increased competitiveness within the area of research of the centre (ikke for off. partnere)
Arkitekt/ R dgiver Snitt alle Energi Industri Utbygger Kommune Myndighet 3,0 3,2 3,7 5,3 3,8 1,5 3,4 A. Has the participation in the centre influenced the R&D and Innovation strategy of your company? B. How do you evaluate the centre wrt: Level of competency of centre staff Project management of centre Communication between centre and partners The usefulness of research activities as seen from the company C. How has the centre's activities benefited the partner: Ideas for new products, processes and/or services New or improved methods/models developed by the centre Improvement of products, processes and/or services Strengthened knowledge base of the company Improved access to competent personnel and knowledge institutions Recruitment of qualified personnel Improved network to other partners Increased competitiveness within the area of research of the centre (ikke for off. partnere) 3,7 4,3 4,3 3,3 4,5 5,0 5,4 4,2 4,6 5,2 4,7 3,8 4,8 5,3 5,3 4,5 4,9 5,6 5,1 4,6 4,3 4,5 4,5 4,0 4,4 5,0 4,9 4,1 2,7 3,4 4,5 4,3 4,1 4,0 3,8 3,2 3,8 3,9 4,4 3,9 4,7 4,0 2,3 3,2 4,0 4,8 3,7 5,0 3,8 2,7 3,2 4,3 4,5 3,4 4,0 3,7 2,7 3,4 3,2 4,0 3,3 5,0 3,6 3,7 4,4 4,5 4,5 4,3 4,5 4,3 5,0 5,0 4,0 5,3 5,1 4,5 4,8 2,3 4,0 2,8 4,4 2,7 3,8 3,0 4,8 3,5 4,0 5,0 4,5 3,2 4,2 3,0 4,2 4,4 4,5 5,0 4,2
Overall outcome The quality and outcome of the research carried out in the Centre is impressive at different levels including in terms of its broad scope and the variety of problems and research issues it covers. This could pose a formidable challenge to the organisation and management of research. The Centre deals with this in an excellent manner and contributes to the forefront of international research on the transition towards low-carbon settlements and societies. Moreover, there is a good mix of industry focused and research-based projects, supported by the ZEN Labs and Pilots. 13
Kommentarer og kritikk Bredden av forskningstema og ulike forskningsdisipliner gj r det mer krevende skape en betydelig effekt p praktisk utvikling og implementering av nullutslippsnabolag. Det vil ogs v re krevende skape tilstrekkelig merverdi for deltakende partnere "this will remain a constant challenge " Kanskje p grunn av dette (bredden), blir det ogs vanskelig f en forst else av hvordan ZEN senteret utgj r en forskjell n r det gjelder flytte landet som helhet mot ZENs m lsetting, ved "winning hearts and minds and spreading the word beyond the pilot projects". Peker p at partnere rapporterer i varierende grad opplevde fordeler ved partnerskapet- spesielt gjelder dette industripartnere hvor deltakelsen ikke har gitt seg utslag i endringer i "the way these organisations do business " 14
Anbefalinger (1 av 3) That in the second funding period, the Centre extensively test its various models & tools in the real-world settings that its partners can provide, with an additional focus on reaching the general public. 15
Anbefalinger (2 av 3) That the Centre formalise the process used to manage the diversity of topics that come within the purview of zero emissions neighbourhoods. While the broad scope of the Centre should be maintained and the development of new topics should be encouraged, transparent and strategically informed decisions need to be taken as to which of these topics should be incorporated into the program, which put aside for associated projects, and which left altogether. 16
Anbefalinger (3 av 3) That the Centre increase efforts to improve longevity of the program by expending effort in the last three years on facilitating knowledge transfer from academia and research partners to the industry through researchers spending time in industry and industry partners spending time in the Centre. F ex by More work across work-packages A knowledge exchange programme within the centre 17
Generell kommentar innovasjon There is potential for further improvement and clarity in the reporting on innovation in the Centre. While the high number of innovations listed in the current Innovation Report is laudable, many different kinds of innovations (often rather ideas, concepts or inventions) are lumped together and could profit from a clearer structuring; estimation of the likely impact (with details of how this will be measured); potential of the innovations reported; and a clear strategy of which innovations to emphasise in the report. 18
Innovasjon og verdiskapning The Centre is seen as a very promising asset by most of the partners The Centre has organised and built up very good capacities to meet industrial needs (pilot projects, Living labs and case studies), but on the other hand, these seem rather underexploited so far, with the exception of the ZEN Cases. The need to generalise and implement the knowledge created in the Centre for broader industry and the public sector is an important issue for the final 3 years. (Suggest topics like ZEN and the legal framework + standardization and safety) The number of reported associated projects is commendable. The Panel suggests the Centre report the spin-out projects categorised by origin from the research activities/output in the Centre. In addition, we suggest the Centre report on associated projects that deliver knowledge to the Centre, i.e. spin-in projects. 19
Hva gjr vi videre? Diskuterer internt i ledergruppen lager plan for oppf lging Kommenterer rapporten innen 14.5 Har midtveisevalueringen og innovasjon som tema n r vi avholder partnerm ter Legger frem for styre og GF i juni Legger opp til en (mer) inkluderende prosess med arbeidsplan for 2022- 2023 20
