Main Evaluation Dimensions and Indicators for Non-Conventional Materials and Technologies - NOCMAT R&D Projects

Abstract:

Science and technology have contributed since the Second World War to the economic development without considering adequately different social classes. The intensive Research and Development (R&D) activities in the rapidly growing areas of Science, Technology and Innovation (ST&I) such as new high resistance cements, steel, petrochemical derived materials, among others have not given the opportunity to less developed nations to cut the vicious circle which maintained them technologically dependent on industrialized countries. Also, the results of many successfully realized R&D projects concerned with Non-Conventional Materials and Technologies (NOCMAT) in developing countries including Brazil have not been used in large scale in practice. This is due to the lack of evaluation criteria from planning to project implementation by governmental agencies, private organizations and educational institutions concerned with the newly developed sustainable materials and technologies. The problems of evaluating R&D innovation outputs and impacts for civil construction are complex and need scientific and systematic studies in order to avoid the social and environmental mistakes occurred in industrialized countries. This paper presents four relevant dimensions and its pertinent indicators for NOCMAT projects evaluation concerned with materials, structural elements and technologies of bamboo, soil and composites reinforced with vegetable fibers. Specifically, 1) Political, Strategic and Normative; 2) Organizational; 3) Allocation and Management of Resources; and 4) Technical, Scientific and Economic evaluation dimensions are considered and discussed.

• Periodical: Key Engineering Materials (Volume 600)
• Pages: 523-534
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.600.523
• Online since: March 2014
• Authors: Pierre Ohayon*, Khosrow Ghavami
• Keywords: Bamboo, Dimensions, Evaluation, Fiber, Indicators, NOCMAT

References

[1] Ghavami, K. Cement Composites Reinforced with Bamboo and Vegetable Fibers. Proc. of the First International Conference on Concrete & Development, Tehran / I. R. Iran, Apr. 30-May 2, v. II, 2001, pp.445-461.

[2] Brasil. Ministério da Ciência e Tecnologia Livro Verde – O debate necessário: Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovação – Desafios para a Sociedade Brasileira. Brasília: MCT/Academia Brasileira de Ciências, Jul. (2001).

DOI: 10.29327/cb-ciencias-exatas-computacao-tecnologia-inovacao-1.598936

[3] Albuquerque, M. E. E.; Bonacelli, M. B. M.; Weigel, P. A questão ambiental e a contribuição dos institutos de pesquisa à geração de tecnologias ambientalmente sustentáveis. In: Parcerias Estratégicas, Brasília/DF, v. 15, n. 30, pp.9-24, Jan. (2010).

[4] Kuhlman, S. Evaluation as a source of 'strategic intelligence. In: Shapira, P.; Kuhlman, S. Learning from Science and Technology Policy Evaluation – Experiences from the United States and Europe. Northampton/MA: Edward Elgar, 2003. (Chapter 18, pp.352-379.

DOI: 10.4337/9781781957059.00025

[5] Wickremasinghe, S. I.; Gupta, V. K. Science & Technology Policy and Indicators for Development – Perspectives from Developing Countries. Dehli: Daya Publishing House, (2008).

[6] Bellen, H. M. Van. Indicadores de Sustentabilidade – uma análise comparativa. 2ª Ed., São Paulo: FGV Editora, (2006).

[7] Morin, J.; Rafferty, P. J. The six key functions of technological resources management. Miami/Florida-USA: Institute of Industrial Engineering. Proc. of the Second International Conference on Management of Technology, Feb. 28–Mar. 2, 1990, pp.621-627.

[8] Marcovitch, J.; Ohayon, P. Évaluation em Science et Technologie au Brésil. Paris: CPE/MRT. Colloque international CPE – Méthodologies évaluatives de la recherche. CPE Étude, n. 51, pp.63-79, Mai (1985).

[9] Boggio, G.; Spachis-Papazois, E. Evaluation of Research and Development – Methodologies for R&D Evaluation in the European Community Member States, The United States of America and Japan. Proceedings of the Seminar held in Brussels, Belgium, October 17-18, 1983. Commission of the European Communities. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company: (1984).

DOI: 10.1016/0377-2217(85)90262-0

[10] Dale, R. Evaluating Development Programmes and Projects. 2nd Ed., London: Sage Publications, (2004).

[11] Valeriano, D. L. Gerência em Projetos – Pesquisa, Desenvolvimento e Engenharia. São Paulo: Makron Books, (1998).

[12] Quinn, J. B. The measurement and evaluation of research results. Hanover, New Hampshire: Darthmouth College, (1958).

[13] Asbury, W. C. Establishing research projects. In: Heyel, C. (ed. ) Handbook of industrial research management. 2. ed. New York: Reinhold Book, (1968).

[14] Cleland, D. I. Systems analysis and project management. 2. ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975. (series in Management).

[15] O'Brien, P. E.; James, J. Project management – an overview. Project Management, Lancaster/Pa, v. 8, n. 3, pp.27-32, Sept. (1977).

[16] Decotiis, T. A.; Dyer, L. Defining and measuring project performance. Research Management, Lancaster/Pa, v. 22, n. 1, pp.17-22, Jan. (1979).

DOI: 10.1080/00345334.1979.11756516

[17] Vasconcellos, E. P. G. de. Avaliação do desempenho de projetos de pesquisa tecnologia. In: V Simpósio de Pesquisa em Administração de Ciência e Tecnologia. 1980, São Paulo. Anais. São Paulo: IA/USP.

DOI: 10.29327/155543.1-8

[18] Ellis, l. Introduction to Evaluating R&D Process Management. In: ____. Evaluation of R&D Processes: Effectiveness Through Measurements. Norwood/MA: Artech House, (1997).

[19] Geisler, E. The Metrics of Science and Technology. Westport/CT: Quorum Books, (2000).

[20] Cleland, D. I.; Ireland, L. R. O Gerenciamento de Projetos. In: _____. 2. ed. Gerenciamento de Projetos. Rio de Janeiro: LTC, 2007. (Capítulo 1).

[21] Clifford, F. G.; Larson, E. W. Gerenciamento de projetos moderno. In: _____. Gerenciamento de projetos – o processo gerencial. 4a. ed. São Paulo: McGraw-Hill, 2009. (Capítulo 1).

[22] The World Bank Building Evaluation Capacity. Washington: The World Bank / Operations Evaluation Department. Lessons & Practices, n. 4, pp.1-11, (1994).

[23] International Atomic Energy Agency Planning and Designing IAEA Technical Co-Operation Projects: Guidelines. Vienna/Austria: IAEA, Department of Technical Co-Operation. Jun. (1997).

[24] Knowlton, L. W.; Phillips, C. C. The Logic Model Guidebook – Better Strategies for Great Results. Thousand Oaks/Ca: Sage, (2009).

DOI: 10.3138/cjpe.27.006

[25] Chen, H-T. Evaluation Outcomes. In: Practical Program Evaluation. London: Sage Publications, 2005. (Chapter 9, pp.195-229).

[26] Holvoet, N.; Renard, R. Desk Screening of Development Projects: Is It Effective? In: Stern, E. Evaluation Research Methods. London: Sage Publications, 2005. (Vol. 4, Chapter 60, pp.87-107).

[27] Champagne, F.; Hartz, Z.; Brouselle, A.; Contandriopoulos, A. -P. A Apreciação Normativa. In: Avaliação – conceitos e métodos. Rio de Janeiro: Fiocruz, 2011. (Chapter 4, pp.77-94).

[28] Champagne, F.; Brouselle, A.; Contandriopoulos, A. -P.; Hartz, Z. A Análise Estratégica. In: Avaliação – conceitos e métodos. Rio de Janeiro: Fiocruz, 2011. (Chapter 5, pp.95-104).

[29] Farand, L. A Análise da Produção. In: Avaliação – conceitos e métodos. Rio de Janeiro: Fiocruz, 2011. (Chapter 7, pp.115-158).

[30] Champagne, F.; Brouselle, A.; Contandriopoulos, A. -P.; Hartz, Z. A Análise dos Efeitos. In: Avaliação – conceitos e métodos. Rio de Janeiro: Fiocruz, 2011. (Chapter 8, pp.159-182).

[31] Brouselle, A.; Lachaine, J.; Contandriopoulos, A. -P. A Avaliação Econômica. In: Avaliação – conceitos e métodos. Rio de Janeiro: Fiocruz, 2011. (Chapter 9, pp.183-216).

[32] Brouselle, A.; Lachaine, J.; Contandriopoulos, A. -P. A Análise da Implantação. In: Avaliação – conceitos e métodos. Rio de Janeiro: Fiocruz, 2011. (Chapter 10, pp.217-238).

[33] Geisler, E. Science and Technology, The Economy, and Society. In: Creating Value with Science and Technology. Westport: Quorum Books, 2001. (Part IV, pp.167-315).

[34] Ohayon, P. Modelo Integrado de Indicadores de Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação no Estado do Rio de Janeiro. Rio de Janeiro: UFRJ, 2007. (Research Project sponsored by CNPq/MCTI-Brazil, Edital Universal 2004, Vol. 2, pp.2-24).

DOI: 10.24869/psyd.2022.447

[35] Kusek, J. Z.; Rist, R. Step 3: Selecting Key Performance Indicators to Monitor Outcomes. In Ten Steps to a Results-Based Monitoring and Evaluation System. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank, 2004. (Chapter 3, pp.65-79).

[36] Franceschini, F.; Galetto, M.; Maisano, D. Management by Measurement – Designing Key Indicators and Performance Measurement Systems. Torino: Springer, (2010).

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-01192-5_5

[37] Parmenter, D. Key Performance Indicators – Developing, Implementing, and Using Winning KPIs. 2nd Ed., Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, (2010).

DOI: 10.1002/9781119019855

[38] Cunningham, P.; Nedeva, M. Towards a system of continuous evaluation and monitoring for European co-operation in scientific and technical research (COST). Research Evaluation, v. 8, n. 3, pp.142-154, Dec. (1999).

DOI: 10.3152/147154499781777487

[39] Brasil. Ministério do Meio Ambiente Relatório sobre a Aplicação Preliminar dos Indicadores do Projeto AMA para Monitoramento do PPG7. Brasília: MMA/ Secretaria de Coordenação da Amazônia. Projeto Piloto para Proteção das Florestas Tropicais do Brasil – PPG7. Projeto Apoio ao Monitoramento e Análise – AMA. Mar. (2001).

DOI: 10.1590/s1414-753x2010000200006

[40] UNEP Bergen Ministerial Declaration of Sustainable Development in the ECE Region. Bergen/Norway, 14-15 May, 1990, Industry and environment, v. 13, n. 2, pp.54-56, Apr. /Jun. (1990).

[41] Mullick, A. K. Role of Cement and Concrete in Sustainable Societal Development. 1st International Conference on Concrete & Development, Tehran/Iran, Apr. 30–May 2, 2001, pp.573-582.