Search results

The setting up of e-university has been slow-going. Much of e-university slow progress has been attributed to poor business models, branding, disruptive technologies, lack of organisational structure that accommodates such challenges, and failure to integrate a blended approach. One of the stumbling blocks, among many, is the handling of evaluation process. E-university models do not provide much automation compared to the original brick-and-mortar classroom model of delivery. The underlining technologies may not have been supportive; however, the conditions are changing, and more evaluation tools are becoming available for academics. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

This paper identifies the extent of current online evaluation processes. In this process, the team reviews the case study of a UK E-University using Adobe Connect learning model that mirrors much of the physical processes as well as online exams and evaluation tools. Using the Riva model, the paper compares the physical with the online evaluation processes for e-universities to identify differences in these processes to evaluate the benefits of e-learning. As a result, the models can help us to identify the processes where improvements can take place for automating the process and evaluate the impact of this change.

The paper concludes that this process can be significantly shortened and provide a fairer outcome but there remain some challenges for e-university processes to overcome.

This paper examines the vital quality assurance processes in academia as more universities move towards process automation, blended or e-university business models. Using the case study of Arden University online distance learning, the paper demonstrates, through modelling and analysis that the process of online automation of the evaluation process is achieved with significant efficiency.

This chapter insists that evaluation of the process and results of cocreation is a precondition for continuous improvement and helps maintain support from external sponsors and funders. The main benefits of systematic evaluation of cocreation are learning and legitimacy rather than control and allocation. The chapter scrutinizes the two most common evaluation tools, formative and summative evaluation, and finds that they both fail to appreciate the emergent character of cocreation processes. The solution to this problem is to supplement formative and summative evaluation with developmental evaluation, which prompts the participating actors to engage in a critical interrogation of what they are doing, the reasons for doing it, and the results they achieve. Finally, the chapter explains how the commitment of developmental evaluation to using real-time data in the evaluation of change theories can be pursued through a collective impact strategy.

During the evaluation of European Capital of Culture (ECoC) Aarhus 2017, the evaluation organisation rethinkIMPACTS 2017 formulated a set of “dilemmas” capturing the main challenges arising during the design of the ECoC evaluation. This functioned as a framework for the evaluation process. This paper aims to present and discuss the relevance of the “Evaluation Dilemmas Model” as subsequently applied to the Galway 2020 ECoC programme evaluation.

The paper takes an empirical approach including auto-ethnography and interview data to document and map the dilemmas involved in undertaking an evaluation in two different European cities. Evolved via a process of practice-based research, the article addresses the development of and the arguments for the dilemmas model and considers its potential for wider applicability in the evaluation of large-scale cultural projects.

The authors conclude that the “Evaluation Dilemmas Model” is a valuable heuristic for considering the endogenous and exogenous issues in cultural evaluation.

The model developed is useful for a wide range of cultural evaluation processes including – but not limited to – European Capitals of Culture.

What has not been addressed in the academic literature is the process of evaluating ECoCs; especially how evaluators often take part in an overall process that is not just about the evaluation but also planning and delivering a project that includes stakeholder management and the development of evaluation criteria, design and methods.

The purpose of this paper is to generalize the traditional risk evaluation methods and to specify a multi-level risk evaluation framework, in order to prepare customized risk evaluation and to enable effectively integrating the elements of risk evaluation.

A real case study of an electric motor manufacturing company is presented to illustrate the advantages of this new framework compared to the traditional and fuzzy failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) approaches.

The essence of the proposed total risk evaluation framework (TREF) is its flexible approach that enables the effective integration of firms’ individual requirements by developing tailor-made organizational risk evaluation.

Increasing product/service complexity has led to increasingly complex yet unique organizational operations; as a result, their risk evaluation is a very challenging task. Distinct structures, characteristics and processes within and between organizations require a flexible yet robust approach of evaluating risks efficiently. Most recent risk evaluation approaches are considered to be inadequate due to the lack of flexibility and an inappropriate structure for addressing the unique organizational demands and contextual factors. To address this challenge effectively, taking a crucial step toward customization of risk evaluation.

In this contribution to EDI's professional insights, the authors develop practical and evidence-based recommendations that are developed for bias mitigation, discretion elimination and process optimization in panel evaluations and decisions in research funding. An analysis is made of how the expectation of “selling science” adds layers of complexity to the evaluation and decision process. The insights are relevant for optimization of similar processes, including publication, recruitment and selection, tenure and promotion.

The recommendations are informed by experiences and evidence from commissioned projects with European research funding organizations. The authors distinguish between three aspects of the evaluation process: written applications, enacted performance and group dynamics. Vignettes are provided to set the stage for the analysis of how bias and (lack of) fit to an ideal image makes it easier for some than for others to be funded.

In research funding decisions, (over)selling science is expected but creates shifting standards for evaluation, resulting in a narrow band of acceptable behavior for applicants. In the authors' recommendations, research funding organizations, evaluators and panel chairs will find practical ideas and levers for process optimization, standardization and customization, in terms of awareness, accountability, biased language, criteria, structure and time.

Showing how “selling science” in research funding adds to the cumulative disadvantage of bias, the authors offer design specifications for interventions to mitigate the negative effects of bias on evaluations and decisions, improve selection habits, eliminate discretion and create a more inclusive process.

Since 2006, higher education institutions (HEIs) in Sweden, should according to the Higher Education Act, promote sustainable development (SD). In 2016, the Swedish Government asked the Swedish higher education authority to evaluate how this study is proceeding. The authority chose to focus on education. This paper aims to produce a report on this evaluation.

All 47 HEIs in Sweden were asked to write a self-evaluation report based on certain evaluation criteria. A panel was appointed consisting of academics and representatives for students and working life. The panel wrote an evaluation of each HEI, a report on general findings and recommendations, and gave an overall judgement of each HEI in two classes as follows: the HEI has well-developed processes for integration of SD in education or the HEI needs to develop their processes.

Overall, a mixed picture developed. Most HEIs could give examples of programmes or courses where SD was integrated. However, less than half of the HEIs had overarching goals for integration of SD in education or had a systematic follow-up of these goals. Even fewer worked specifically with pedagogy and didactics, teaching and learning methods and environments, sustainability competences or other characters of education for SD. Overall, only 12 out of 47 got a higher judgement.

This is a unique study in which all HEIs in a country are evaluated. This provides unique possibilities for identifying success factors and barriers. The importance of the leadership of the HEIs became clear.

This paper proposes a heuristic, data-driven approach to the rapid performance evaluation of periodic maintenance on complex production plants. Through grouping, maintenance interval (MI)-based evaluation and performance assessment, potential nonvalue-adding maintenance elements can be identified in the current maintenance structure. The framework reduces management complexity and supports the decision-making process for further maintenance improvement.

The evaluation framework follows a prescriptive research approach. The framework is structured in three steps, which are further illustrated in the case study. The case study utilizes real-life data to verify the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed framework.

Through a case study conducted on 9,538 pieces of equipment from eight offshore oil and gas production platforms, the results show considerable potential for maintenance performance improvement, including up to a 23% reduction in periodic maintenance hours.

The problem of performance evaluation under limited data availability has barely been addressed in the literature on the plant level. The proposed framework aims to provide a quantitative approach to reducing the structural complexity of the periodic maintenance evaluation process and can help maintenance professionals prioritize the focus on maintenance improvement among current strategies.

The proposed framework is especially suitable for initial performance assessment in systems with a complex structure, limited maintenance records and imperfect data, as it reduces management complexity and supports the decision-making process for further maintenance improvement. A similar application has not been identified in the literature.

This paper adds to the ongoing debate on judgements, opportunity evaluation and founder identity theory and shows that founders vary in their prioritisation and combination of judgement criteria, linked to their respective social founder identity. It further reveals how this variation among founder identity types shapes their perception of distinct entrepreneurial opportunities and the forming of first-person opportunity beliefs.

This study uses a qualitative approach by presenting three business scenarios to a sample of 34 first-time founders. It adopts a first-person perspective on their cognitive processes during the evaluation of entrepreneurial opportunities using verbal protocol and content analysis techniques.

The theorised model highlights the use of similar categories of judgement criteria by individual founders during opportunity evaluation that followed two distinct stages, namely search and validation. Yet, founders individualised their judgement process through the prioritisation of different judgement criteria.

The authors provide new insights into how individuals individuate entrepreneurial opportunities through the choice of different judgement criteria that enable them to develop opportunity confidence during opportunity evaluation. The study also shows that first-time founders depict variations in their cognitive frames that are based on their social identity types as they assess opportunity-related information and elicit variations in reciprocal relationships emerging between emotion and cognition. Exposing these subjective cognitive evaluative processes provides theoretical and practical implications that are discussed as well.

The purpose of this manuscript is twofold. First, this manuscript explores how dialogic evaluation (DE), as a participatory evaluation tool, develops inter-organizational learning (IOL). Second, based on empirical analysis, the work provides pragmatic insights to support practitioners in implementing a facilitative framework grounded in DE for the increased uptake of IOL.

Two cases of multi-stakeholder partnerships in sport for development and peace (SDP) in Italy were analyzed and compared to explore whether and how the implementation of DE supported the development of IOL.

In both cases, applying a three-phase DE process supported several IOL outcomes, such as common knowledge, new innovative solutions development and transfer of new acquisitions. Indeed, DE promoted three key IOL objectives: the emergence of latent relational dimensions and issues to bridge multiple levels; intra- and inter-redefinition and intersection of boundaries; awareness of relevance and usefulness of what was accomplished during the partnership. This paper also discusses some practical insights for DE methodology implementation to activate IOL.

This research contributes to the understanding of an effective IOL by developing synergies from network interactions. Moreover, the researcher applied a novel methodology, DE, in IOL’s research domain, focusing on a different context and setting such as SDP.

The purpose of this study is to develop an appropriate new product development (NPD) process of Company “T”, a medium-sized firm, by analyzing the existing NPD process and failure cases of the Company.

The proposed research framework is as follows: first, prospective studies of the NPD process are performed using the existing literature and preliminary references; second, comparative analysis between the current processes and a NPD process is performed; third, phase-based evaluations upon failed product cases are conducted with a NPD process so as to identify the abridged steps and root-causes of failures; finally, renewed priorities are set forth by utilizing the analytic hierarchy process analysis and questionnaire analysis upon the above identified causes of failures.

The resulting accomplishments include the establishment of NPD processes that resonates with the current states of Company “T”, which, in turn, ensures the increase of efficiency, the decrease in development duration and the strategy of capacity-concentration and priority-selection.

As Company “T”’s development process is outdated and products are developed without adequate market information research and feasibility analysis, the percentage of failed development project is as high as 87 per cent. Thus, this study aims to develop an appropriate NPD process of Company “T” by analyzing the existing NPD process and failure cases of the Company.