创新生态系统中的项目评估

Luiza Stein da Silva, Micheline Gaia Hoffmann
{"title":"创新生态系统中的项目评估","authors":"Luiza Stein da Silva, Micheline Gaia Hoffmann","doi":"10.12712/RPCA.V14I3.43111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The objective of this study is to analyze how different typologies and evaluation approaches relate to assessment requirements of a program inserted in an innovation ecosystem. Methodology involved interviews with 21 stakeholders and a documentary survey. Although the nature of the program suggests greater alignment with developmental evaluation and a subjectivist approach, the results also imply assessment demands based on the objectivist approach. Conclusions highlight the relevance of stakeholders’ demand for defining evaluation guidelines, and indicate that programs inserted in collaborative networks receive a diversity of demands that require multiple typologies and approaches.","PeriodicalId":344601,"journal":{"name":"Revista Pensamento Contemporâneo em Administração","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Program assessment in innovation ecosystems\",\"authors\":\"Luiza Stein da Silva, Micheline Gaia Hoffmann\",\"doi\":\"10.12712/RPCA.V14I3.43111\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The objective of this study is to analyze how different typologies and evaluation approaches relate to assessment requirements of a program inserted in an innovation ecosystem. Methodology involved interviews with 21 stakeholders and a documentary survey. Although the nature of the program suggests greater alignment with developmental evaluation and a subjectivist approach, the results also imply assessment demands based on the objectivist approach. Conclusions highlight the relevance of stakeholders’ demand for defining evaluation guidelines, and indicate that programs inserted in collaborative networks receive a diversity of demands that require multiple typologies and approaches.\",\"PeriodicalId\":344601,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista Pensamento Contemporâneo em Administração\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista Pensamento Contemporâneo em Administração\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12712/RPCA.V14I3.43111\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Pensamento Contemporâneo em Administração","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12712/RPCA.V14I3.43111","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究的目的是分析不同的类型和评估方法如何与创新生态系统中插入的项目的评估需求相关。方法包括与21个利益相关者的访谈和文献调查。尽管项目的本质建议与发展性评估和主观主义方法更加一致,但结果也意味着基于客观主义方法的评估需求。结论强调了利益相关者对定义评估指南的需求的相关性,并表明插入协作网络的项目收到了需要多种类型和方法的多样性需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Program assessment in innovation ecosystems
The objective of this study is to analyze how different typologies and evaluation approaches relate to assessment requirements of a program inserted in an innovation ecosystem. Methodology involved interviews with 21 stakeholders and a documentary survey. Although the nature of the program suggests greater alignment with developmental evaluation and a subjectivist approach, the results also imply assessment demands based on the objectivist approach. Conclusions highlight the relevance of stakeholders’ demand for defining evaluation guidelines, and indicate that programs inserted in collaborative networks receive a diversity of demands that require multiple typologies and approaches.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Ontologia e epistemologia para estudos de estratégia baseados em prática Inovação, eficiência e competitividade nos subsetores do polo industrial de Manaus Relação líder-membro na identidade organizacional dos docentes Predisposição de empresas inovadoras à inovação frugal CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP, AND SPIRITISM DOCTRINE: EXAMINING THE COMMON LINKAGES
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1