Consultants always bring new ideas and provide their help in implementing new business models. Those models and methods are not good for every kind of business.
Figure 1. Framework of ICT practices in companies At the highest level of Figure1 are managers and executives,
At the second level are professionals and technical workers, who act as R&d personnel, product designers,
engineers and knowledge workers of the same kind. The common aspect for the second level is that these are normally middle management employees.
The third level of the Marchand et al. model includes the process managers, the employees whose responsibilities include the co-ordination of cross-functional or horizontal processes and communication with partners like suppliers and customers.
The bottom level represents the operational knowledge workers and supervisors. These people are responsible for the direct operations of company and the processes through
which products and services are provided and distributed. All these levels need different kinds of ICT and these levels have four Internal Auditing & Risk management Anul V
and record the actions and performance of operational employees in carrying out their tasks. But there is still something wrong in the way companies utilize ICT in business. 4. The gap between the development of business
There are few employees and specialists who clearly understand business and technology. Figure 3 below presents ideas on the gap between strategic business and technology development.
not only at management and executive levels but also in at development and realization levels. The strategy process requires knowledge and participation from many levels of organizations and also from different business units.
Assessing Europe's University-Based Research Expert Group on Assessment of University-Based Research EUR 24187 EN European Research Area Science & society EUROPEAN COMMISSION Research
http://ec. europa. eu/research/research-eu EUROPEAN COMMISSION Assessing Europe's University-Based Research Expert Group on Assessment of University-Based Research RTD.
This is the question experts were asked to answer, following a 2006 Commission Communication on the modernisation of universities1,
9 1. 1 Executive Summary...9 1. 2 The Way Forward Recommendations...15 2 Introduction...
147 9 Overview 1. 1 Executive Summary HEIGHTENED IMPORTANCE OF UNIVERSITY-BASED RESEARCH AND OF ASSESSMENT OF UNIVERSITYBASED RESEARCH The political context Assessment of university-based research1 (AUBR) has become a major issue for a wide range of stakeholders at all levels.
However, assessment experts have expressed serious reservations about the methodologies used by global ranking organisations. In particular, doubt has been cast on the possibility of comparing whole universities in other words, 1 In this report,
remit and composition The Expert Group on Assessment of University-based Research was established in July 2008 to identify the parameters to be observed in research assessment as well as analyse major assessment
The Expert Group had 15 members from 12 EU Member States, Australia, a European association and an international organisation.
and university senior management. Academically speaking the experts represented a variety of disciplines, including arts and design, humanities, socioeconomic sciences,
and natural sciences. 2 That people from such diverse backgrounds with initially different views on, inter alia, assessment methods and appropriate research outputs and outcomes reached agreement on a number of basic principles and a new approach to AUBR,
Activities undertaken and outcomes reached by the AUBR Expert Group Two major interrelated activities were undertaken:
in order to have the provisional outcomes of their work validated by invited key experts and stakeholder representatives.
3) Strengths and weaknesses of the various indicators used in assessment exercises The Expert Group analysed the different characteristics and dimensions of indicators,
which occurred during the course of the Expert Group's deliberations, had an impact on the Group's discussions.
Members of the Expert Group reviewed practices in their home countries and universities. Outcomes These case studies represent different approaches and objectives.
the Expert Group wishes to make the following general recommendations and, linked to these, propose a new approach to AUBR.
A new approach The Expert Group developed the outline of a multidimensional research assessment matrix.
and attended by some twenty external experts and representatives of stakeholder organisations, and 15 officials from DG Research and other Commission services.
The key objective was to validate the provisional results of the Expert Group's work.
and opportunities presented by the report of the Expert Group should be taken up in the current discussions about the further development of the European Research Area.
These and other recommendations were incorporated into the Expert Group's final report, and specifically into the recommendations to stakeholders set out below.
European and international context for the establishment of the Expert Group on the Assessment of University-based Research (AUBR.
The remit of the Expert Group is explained, and a summary of its activities and findings is presented. 2. 1 University-based Research in the Knowledge Economy Around the world,
In response, the European commission established the Expert Group on the Assessment of University-Based Research to develop a multidimensional methodology to assess the quality of research produced in universities
Activities Undertaken by the Expert Group The Expert Group met on seven occasions between July 2008 and July 2009 at meetings in DG Research, 8, Square de Meeûs, Brussels. The‘core group
fifteen members of the Expert Group plus more than twenty invited key experts and fifteen officials from different parts of the EU Commission was organised in April 2009 to validate the analysis and approach of the Expert Group.
A summary of the workshop's conclusions is contained in Appendix V. The Expert Group undertook a range of activities to inform its deliberations.
The Expert Group concludes, however, that contrary to providing an accurate and useful assessment of research,
the Expert Group Has illustrated 1 the wide range of users and uses of research assessment information;
and underpinned the work of the Expert Group on AUBR. Chapter 4 examines key characteristics of research assessment,
and underpinned the Expert Group's approach to research assessment. This embraces an inclusive definition of research and disciplines,
which are open to authentication and scrutiny by experts. Differences between disciplines or research fields derive from their history and the way in
‘Users'include policymakers and government agencies, universities, public or private research organisations (PROS), researchers or graduate students, employers, civil society and the media.
or Councils o HE Executives and Management o HE Research Groups Governments In addition to the reasons stated above,
Increasingly, employers use such data to identify likely sources of potential employees. o Private firms and entrepreneurs o Public organizations o Employers Civil Society and Civic Organizations
recruitment of students, academics and researchers from outside region and internationally HE Executives/Management Policy and planning Strategic positioning Research strategy development/management Investor confidence/value-for-money
and expertise Identify potential employees Institutional and field data re level of intensity, expertise, quality,
and expertise Identify potential employees Institutional and field data re level of intensity, expertise, quality,
and teaching Employers Quality, sustainability, relevance and impact of research activity Identify potential partners and expertise Identify consultancy,
and expertise Identify potential employees Institutional and field data re level of intensity, expertise, quality,
how much output vis-a-vis funding 35 3. 5 Summary The Expert Group recognizes that new knowledge is divided no longer strictly between basic and applied activity
and quality while industry and employer groups want to be able to identify potential employees. 3. Some of the required data may be readily available
graduate employment is a proxy for the adequacy of graduates for labour market requirements; budget and research expenditure is a proxy for the quality of the infrastructure;
The Expert Group has adopted the concept of‘knowledge cluster'as the basic unit of assessment.
and ensuring professional behaviour between supervisor and research students. Today, completion of an ethical statement or formal ethical approval by a university or national Research Ethics committee is required by most funding organisations,
Discipline specific journal rankings, especially in social sciences and humanities, based on expert opinion in combination with indicators.
Develop appropriate indicators to ensure good ethical practice is promoted without interfering in processes of discovery. 49 4. 10 Summary The Expert Group notes that indicators are chosen as a method of measuring the various aspects of the research process.
The Expert Group recommends that this Matrix be used to form the basis of a full-fledged personalised
In Finland, France, The netherlands and the UK, panels include international experts; in Finland, France and The netherlands, this also involves visits to the university.
the Expert Group has developed a Multidimensional Research Assessment Matrix discussed below. 5. 2 Framework for Research Assessment Assessing university-based research is a complex process.
Indicators provide peer experts with condensed, systematic, verified and‘objective'information on the research performance of the knowledge cluster.
This can only be done by experts. Indicators aid good judgement by supporting or challenging peer assumptions, thereby making the assessment process more transparent.
the names of experts being kept secret (Italy) and uncertainty about the way candidates are evaluated (Spain).
which the Expert Group on Assessment of University-based Research was established by DG Research in 2008.
The Expert Group on Assessment of University-based Research has proposed a Multidimensional Research Assessment Matrix.
This would substantially enhance its user-friendliness. 6. 3 Contribution to Future Research Assessment Exercises The AUBR Expert Group hopes that this report will raise awareness of the principles that need to be observed in assessment of university-based research
the Expert Group has identified a wide range of users who seek and require research assessment information for a variety of different and often conflicting uses;
In sum, the Expert Group hopes that this report will serve as a guide to Users of information on the quality of university-based research,
The Expert Group also hopes that this report will provide inspiration to the European commission and Member State governments to launch initiatives
I. Activities and Membership of Expert Group on Assessment of University-Based Research The members of the Expert Group were selected on the basis of their experience and knowledge of research assessment and higher education,
and a good mixture of academic, industrial and policymaking backgrounds and professional experiences. This group includes fifteen (15) members (including the Chairperson
including a representative of the European Universities Association (EUA), plus two (2) international experts. MACKIEWCZ Wolfgang (Chairperson) HAZELKORN Ellen (Rapporteur) BERGHOFF, Sonja (Rapporteur) BONACCORSI, Andrea BORRELL-DAMIAN, Lidia EMPLIT, Philippe INZELT, Annamaria MARKLUND, Goran
Paloma The Expert Group was coordinated by Adeline Kroll (Scientific Officer, EC DG/RTD Directorate, Unit C4 Universities and Researchers;
Curriculum vitae of Members of the Expert Group MACKIEWCZ Wolfgang (Chairperson. Wolfgang is director of the Language Centre and Honorary Professor of English Philology at the Freie Universität Berlin (FUB.
He chaired the Expert Group on the Humanities in FP7, he is the chair of the Expert Advisory Group FP7 Theme 8 and of the Assessment of University-Based Research Expert Group,
and he was rapporteur of the European commission's High Level Group on Multilingualism. Wolfgang Mackiewicz studied English and German at FUB and at the University of Leeds,
She is a Consultant to the OECD Programme on Institutional Management of Higher education (IMHE), and is associated also with the International Association of Universities (IAU).
Ellen is Rapporteur for the EU Expert Group on Assessment of University-based Research, and a member of National Digital Research Centre (NDRC) Management Board, the Arts, Humanities and Social sciences Foresight Working group Ireland,
She is a member of the Executive Committee of the Dean and European Academic Network (DEAN),
She has been the first Hungarian representative in the OECD Working group of the National Experts of Science and Technology Indicators (NESTI) for 12 years.
and Eurostat's indicator work and often assisted at the meetings of OECD's group of national experts of science and technology indicators, NESTI.
Sue is convener of the NSW D/PVCR Group and a member of the Executive of Universities Australia'S d/PVCR Group.
and experts groups of the European commission, the High Level Expert Group on Reporting of Intellectual Capital for increasing investment in Research and development among them.
Their importance is assessed through a combination of an objective and truly unique internal monitor based on citation relationships among journals with assessments by experts from the various fields.
rankings of journals based on impact factors do not correspond very well to rankings made by experts on the basis of their perception on the status or quality of these journals.
Normally, expert peer review or input is the basis of the award, election, invitation or appointment.
because the examination of Phd theses and submissions is undertaken by national and international expert peer researchers.
Case studies of the Research Assessment Experience 84 10.1 AUSTRALIA Executive Summary Australia's Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) will assess research quality within higher education institutions using a combination of indicators
internationally-recognised experts. ERA outcomes will be reported by institution and by discipline, identifying areas that are internationally competitive and emerging areas for further investment.
internationally-recognised experts. Key elements of the ERA methodology are described below. Discipline-specific Indicators are being,
88 10.2 UNIVERSITÉ LIBRE DE BRUXELLES BRUXELLES BELGIUM Executive Summary In Belgium, assessment of university-based research has not yet been undertaken at national or regional/community level.
and an on-site visit of a panel of internationally recognised experts of the discipline in question.
a panel of 10 experts is convened by the academic coordinator; each team has to prepare a self evaluation document, based on a common template:
based on the analysis of this compilation, each expert assesses each team on seven indicators, giving a grade for each indicator (between 1 and 10);
pp. 45-57.91 10.3 FINLAND (AALTO UNIVERSITY) Executive Summary The research evaluation included some innovative ways of using the peer review method.
As a result of the evaluation, senior management will know in which research areas Aalto University achieves the best results
Are they sought-after experts in tenure committees, chair appointments, research assessments and are invited they regularly to speak at the most important conferences in the field?
however, hope that compiling the documents urged them to think about these important things. 93 10.4 FINLAND (HELSINKI UNIVERSITY) Executive Summary The case study describes the research assessment exercise carried out by Helsinki University for its own purposes.
3) expert panels comprised of eminent foreign scholars/scientists; 4) site-visits of one week duration;
http://www. aka. fi/Tiedostot/Tiedostot/Julkaisut/Biotechnology%20in%20finland. pdf The Finnish Higher education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC, an independent expert body nominated by the Ministry
to acquaint foreign researchers (experts serving on evaluation panels) with the research carried out and the researchers working at the university in question.
and editorial assignments), budget and external funding The assessment was conducted by 21 international peer review panels (altogether 148 experts:
Such consequences can be avoided by providing external experts with precise descriptions of the different grades;
Perhaps the only way to obtain more reliable quantitative assessment results is to compare the outputs of departments with those of similar units at other universities. 96 10.5 FRANCE Executive Summary The case study describes the research assessment
99 10.6 GERMANY-FORSCHUNGSRATING (CONDUCTED BY WISSENSCHAFTSRAT Executive Summary The German Science Council Rating carried out a pilot study based on peer review, information from departments, metrics and a reviewers'panel.
In a multi-step assessment process, the institutions were evaluated first by at least two experts independently before each rating was discussed in plenary sessions.
Criteria and data are defined in a discipline-specific manner by experts from the individual fields of research.
In a multi-step assessment process, the institutions were evaluated first by at least two experts independently before each rating was discussed in plenary sessions.
Both expert groups and the steering committee have submitted reports on the pilot study to the Science and Humanities Council.
CHE RESEARCHRANKING Executive Summary CHE Rankings is a discipline-specific, multidimensional system aimed at providing information for students.
105 10.8 GERMANY-INITIATIVE FOR EXCELLENCE Executive Summary The Initiative for Excellence has aroused some controversy in Germany
These were reviewed by internationally appointed panels of experts. The reviews of the Graduate schools and the Clusters were discussed in the‘Expert Commission,
107 10.9 HUNGARY Executive Summary The research assessment related exercise is based on the Act on Higher education (2005) and its complementary law (2007.
In the design stage of the indicators only non-independent experts were involved. In the preparatory phase of Agreement HEIS'selection criteria for indicators was to reach easily good performance
The HAS research assessment is an up-to-date version of West European practices. 110 10.10 IRELAND Executive Summary The Sunday Times Irish Universities League Table is a relatively basic ranking system,
etc. 113 10.11 ITALY Executive Summary In Italy the evaluation of university-based research witnessed two main periods:
and single-blind evaluation of products by independent experts. Members of the disciplinary panels established by CIVR used at least 2 independent opinions from international experts,
and reached a consensus agreement on a final grade to be assigned to each products. Grades were aggregated at department level and then at university level.
Each areas was assigned to a Panel, with a Chairman and a number of experts between 5 and 9 units (151 in total),
mainly from the national scientific community, supported by 6, 661 external experts at international level.
Each product was evaluated by at least two experts. Experts rated products on a four grade scale (Excellent, Good, Acceptable,
Unsatisfactory)( the latter being limited, or limitato in Italian language, a rather ambiguous word). Excellent means top 20%;
Full transparency on methods and mandate to the external experts. Experts classify research outputs according to classes of quality,
departments are ranked according to an aggregation of scores on research outputs. Universities receive a score representing the proportion of departments ranked top. 116 Names of experts are kept secret.
CIVR took into account many criticisms and suggestions. Several meetings and official conferences organized by CIVR together with main PROS,
Great expectations on the newly created Agency (2009). 117 10.12 NETHERLANDS Executive Summary The three main Netherlands organisations responsible for publicly funded research defined a protocol for practical use in all
120 10.13 NORWAY Executive Summary A new model for result based university research funding was established in Norway in 2006.
and potentially important for research policy within the EU. 122 10.14 SPAIN Executive Summary The research outputs of university teachers in terms of publications are evaluated on a voluntary basis every six years.
and for every field there is a Committee of six to eight experts from different areas within the field.
124 10.15 SWEDEN Executive Summary A new model for allocation of university block grants was established in Sweden in the Governmental Research Bill in 2008.
or in terms of its benefits for society and industry. 127 10.16 UNITED KINGDOM Executive Summary Since 1986 the UK national funding bodies have evaluated the quality of research in UK universities through peer review
and it will fully drive research funding for all disciplines from 2014.129 10.17 GLOBAL-WEBOMETRICS Executive Summary Webometrics,
133 http://www. webometrics. info/disclaimer. html 134 10.18 GLOBAL-ACADEMIC RANKING OF WORLD UNIVERSITIES (ARWU) Executive Summary The Academic ranking of world universities (ARWU), first published in 2003 and updated annually by the Institute
RANKING Executive Summary In November 2004, the Times Higher education Supplement published its first World University ranking (WUR), a listing of the top 200 institutions across the globe.
Using subjective inputs peer reviews from academics and employers and quantitative data, such as the numbers of international students and faculty,
and global presence, with the quality of each determined by a combination of qualitative, subjective inputs peer reviews from academics and employers and quantitative data,
6, 354 responses in 2008.40%Employer Review Score based on responses to employer survey. 2, 339 responses in 2008.10%Faculty Student Ratio Score based on student faculty ratio 20%Citations per Faculty Score based on research performance factored against the size of the research
140 10.20 GLOBAL-PERFORMANCE RANKING OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS FOR RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES Executive Summary First published online in 2007, the Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for Research
http://210.71.47.3/ranking/Engmethod. htm http://ranking. heeact. edu. tw/en-us/2008/Page/Methodology 143 10.21 GLOBAL THE LEIDEN RANKING Executive
/European commission EUR 24187 Assessing Europe's University-Based Research-Expert Group on Assessment of University-Based Research Luxembourg:
In 2008, the European commission, DG Research set up the Expert Group on Assessment of University-Based Research to identify the framework for a new
clinicians acting as consultants to system developers who are qualified really not due to their lack of training in biomedical informatics;
The care they provide is supplemented by 300 senior consultants, who are hospital department heads, 250 diagnostic institutes, 600 private pharmacies and public as well as private hospitals.
consultants and others, is one of the more visible benefits that clinicians seek from such a system.
The renowned, Bonn-based Institut für Mittelstandsforschung (Ifm) defines SMES as firms that employ less than 500 workers
Contrasted against some large corporate houses that generate billions of euros in annual sales and employ hundreds of thousands of workers,
and provided employment to 70.9%of all employed persons in 2006 (Ifm, 2007b). In absolute terms German SMES provided employment and/or apprenticeship to 20.42 million people in 2006 in the country.
As on 31.12.2006 large firms (with 250 employees or more) constituted a miniscule 0. 33%of all enterprises.
Of 3, 215,238 enterprises active on the aforementioned date an overwhelming 3, 204,519 were SMES (with less than 250 employees.
confirm, or extend the data base with experts from the selected industries like firm representatives, representatives of industry associations and cluster managers.
R. Tiwari and S. Buse (October 2007) Page 17 of 31 47,998 engineer job vacancies in 2006 resulting in a loss of 3. 5 billion euros (Koppel, 2007.
SMES with a staff of 50 to 249 employees were found to be suffering more from this scarcity (60%)than did large firms (40%)(BITKOM, 2007b.
Google Inc. cited troubles in obtaining work visas for its prospective employees as a reason to set up its first engineering research and development centre outside the US in Bangalore in India (The Hindu,
Furthermore, some employees in the R&d units at the headquarters tend to see the new location as a potential threat to their job security leading to resentments, antagonism and even non-cooperation,
and should provide their employees involved in international activities with cross-cultural training. This sensitization to mutual cultural issues may play a key-role in the success of an international venture.
A thorough understanding of internal business processes, organisational backing not only by senior management but also by other employees, especially in R&d departments,
Staff 14,942 Students 8, 438 7 Adlershof in Figures Science and Technology Park 11 non-university scientific institutes (1, 760 employees) 6
Humboldt University institutes (1, 056 employees; 8, 034 students) 445 technology oriented companies (5, 286 employees) Media City 146 companies (1, 763 employees) Industrial Estate 363
companies (4, 969 employees) 8 WISTA-MANAGEMENT GMBH/Adlershof Projekt Gmbh 9*HU: 246 Mio. € IGAFA:
320 Mio. € (gesch. Mio. EUR%Mio. EUR%Mio. EUR%Investitionen in Infrastruktur (Investitionen und Kosten des Entwicklungsträgers) 503 34%167 20%670 29%Investment in Wissenschaftsinstitute (Humboldt-Universität und außeruniversitäre
Similarly, all the areas of national policy that may impact universities'role in their territories Labour market and employment policies, Science, technology and innovation policies, Competition policy and Regional and urban planning policies
which entrepreneurs are connected to academic experts or the Lectors and knowledge circles policy of appointing a growing number of lectures
where decision makers regularly meet the dilemmas of experts and learn from each others'practices Awareness and supportive environment How aware of the processes and supportive are:
rural rice workers. When a problem has been turned invisible by a mechanism such as an adaptive preference,
This is the case of a trade unionist of the Uruguayan rice rural workers, interviewed during the evaluation process of a project presented to the program.
and that we, rice-workers, die before retiring. We die faster, without any doubt...If you apply glyphosate to pastures,
Workers, family, and social environment had naturalized the high prevalence of deaths at relatively young ages compared with life expectancy of men in the country.
Such diseases began to be seen as problematic by the Rice Worker's Union, and the demand was gathered by researchers Building Bridges 783 at the Universidad de la República
In the previous example, such disruption was provided by the workers'organization, which was able to recognize a problem and express a demand.
The trade union capacity to give voice to this problem is linked perhaps to the concrete historical process going on in Uruguay where neglected workers such as rural workers
and domestic workers gained recently parliamentary recognition for their organizations. It is interesting to reflect on what would have been the situation
if under another correlation of forces rural workers'trade unions continued to be unrecognized. From Demand to Research Stage At a cognitive level, the demand unraveled in the previous stage must be recognized by researchers with the capacity to generate appropriate knowledge in relation to an associated problem.
Only as a way of example, actors of the first type included representatives of cooperatives of hand garbage collectors and of rice rural workers trade unions.
from massive firings and salary reductions to negotiated rises in salaries between workers and entrepreneurs mediated by the state, plus very low levels of unemployment.
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011