CAPITULO I DEL NACIMIENTO DEL
ARTICULO 41.- Son facultades de las Autoridades Fiscales:
Measurement of the performance of a collaboration is a complex and controversial topic because partners do not necessarily have the same expectations or performance criteria (Wahyuni, 2003). However the body of literature view evaluation as an essential element to ensure successful and sustainable collaborations (Yee et al., 2009a). It is difficult to assess and measure because academic research deals with new concepts and explorations in new and uncharted areas (Matthew and Norgaard, 1984). Furthermore research measurement becomes even more overwhelming when it involves UIC activities. There are differences in criteria, values and standards in each sector to judge the performance and productivity of the research (Carboni, 1992). In such a condition many authors have differing views on performance measurement. The following discussion elaborates on several scholars‟ views of collaborative performance measurement in the evaluation stage of UIC.
Das and Teng (2002) have identified four possible outcomes from this stage – stabilisation, reformation, decline and termination. In the stabilisation condition, the collaborative effort becomes mature and able to fit into the environment on a continuous basis and stabilised patterns of interdependencies and collective strength developed. Such outcomes are perfected when a real synergy of two entities are further developed which subsequently influences future collaboration. A possible combination outcome is also predictable such as termination after reformation which may not necessarily signal failure, whilst deterioration in a collaborative environment may lead to a declining outcome.
HellstrOm and Jacob (1999) identified six parameters of collaborative performance measurement based on dynamic network management of UIC effort. Firstly, research performance can be evaluated based on the fertility of its network through its productivity in producing spin-offs leading to new research projects. Secondly, by structuring and connecting networks the collaboration has achieved to address issues such as the diversity of the partners created to allow knowledge sharing. Thirdly, indication of the collaborative efforts financial success is a measurement of the relationship. Indicators such as royalties accrued by the university as a result of the collaborative activity, market share, cost and also duration taken to achieve its overall objectives are financial indicators. Next, measurement by educational outcome such as the generation of graduates from the collaboration, funding of lectureships and equipment obtained (HellstrOm and Jacob, 1999).
Fifth, the number of publication produced from the network is perhaps of greatest value and importance to the university. It is the primary achievement criterion based on the scientific exploration as it reflects the visibility and honour of the university and academic researchers (Carboni, 1992, HellstrOm and Jacob, 1999). Finally, the numbers of patents produced from the research network is also highly prized but this importance varies depending on the organisation. However it follows that with a high rate of patenting there tend to be a decline in the publications, justifying a shift in favour of knowledge dissemination to knowledge protection in the long run (Fulop and Couchman, 2006). Yet in recent years the increase in commercial interests of universities has raised the value of patents and royalties from leveraging deals associated with the collaborative effort and has become an important source of additional income. In addition these interests are becoming one of the favourable factor to develop a long-term relationship with industrial partners (Carboni, 1992). Whilst other scholars believed that the ability to learn is one of the most intangible assets generated from the collaborative effort (Wahyuni, 2003), the knowledge obtained can also result in organisational learning (Kale and Zollo, 2006).
In designing a scalable methodology for use in a UIC research environment, it is crucial to have a thorough appreciation of the R&D life cycle in order to integrate and map it to the methodology. The above discussion on the UIC life cycle thus provides a better understanding of the importance of the requirements, components,
processes and issues that need to be addressed. Based on the discussion in this section, the design of the PMM would need to incorporate aspects of partner selection and assessment to provide a systematic process in the decision making. A list of criteria will be created for use in the PMM for partner selection.
Effective collaboration also needs to be supported by the top management, a favourable management environment, the willingness of attitudinal restructuring by conducting the collaboration with an open mind irrespective of the collaborative mode or types of contractual agreements to minimise partners‟ differences. For effective operation of UIC, scholars have suggested the assignment of an on board project manager from each partner is crucial and they need the skills to act as a social tie builder between organisations to promote better communication channels, as well as in coordinating the UIC project environment. At the close of the UIC, evaluation of collaborative performance becomes a key measurement between partners mainly because each partner has different levels of expectations and performance criteria.
The proposed PMM framework would integrate a toolkit identified as project balanced scorecard which allows partners to view collaborative project performance from four perspectives; financial, customer, internal, innovation and learning. It would aid partners to have a balanced view to understand the many interrelationships in collaboration thus leading to improved decision making and problem solving in the UIC. These elements will be further discussed in chapter 7 and detailed in the PMM guidebook.