IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v29y2020i3p289-299..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How to select the best: Selection procedures of innovation agencies

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Biegelbauer
  • Thomas Palfinger
  • Sabine Mayer

Abstract

Innovation agencies, that is organizations with the primary focus of funding applied research and technological development, evaluate project proposals to select the most promising proposals for funding. At the moment, there is only little verified knowledge available on project evaluation and selection processes of innovation agencies. We want to show how projects are evaluated and selected in these organizations. We want to also make a contribution for better understanding the variety of the utilized processes by pointing out the reasoning behind some of the most important practices. This article therefore focuses on the following questions: How are projects selected in innovation agencies? What are the employed procedures and practices? Are there differences in procedures and practices and what would be the reason for these differences? The basis for answering these questions is a study produced for the European Association of National Innovation Agencies, Taftie. There we have analysed the project selection procedures of 18 programmes run by 12 European innovation agencies. To do so, we have produced an overview of existing selection procedures of the innovation agencies, analysed, and compared the procedures along the stages of a typical selection process. The key points of interest were role of evaluators, selection criteria, ranking procedures, and general process issues.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Biegelbauer & Thomas Palfinger & Sabine Mayer, 2020. "How to select the best: Selection procedures of innovation agencies," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(3), pages 289-299.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:29:y:2020:i:3:p:289-299.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvaa011
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:29:y:2020:i:3:p:289-299.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.