Uncertainty of net present value calculations and the impact on applying integrated maintenance approaches to the UK rail industry

The Public performance indicator (PPI) is an important Key Performance Indicator for Network Rail and monitored carefully by the organisation and their external stakeholders. Condition monitoring is of increasing interest within network rail as a suitable method for increasing asset reliability and improving the PPI metric. As condition monitoring methods are identified each will need assessment to establish the cost and benefit. Benefit can be measured in cost savings as poor PPI performance results in fines. Within many industries Net Present Value (NPV) calculations are used to determine how quickly investments will break-even. Cost-risk is a term that is used to describe the financial impact of an unexpected event (a risk). This paper outlines a more detailed approach to calculating NPV which considers the cost-risk effect of changes of the denial of service charging rate. NPV prediction is of importance when assessing when to deploy different fault detection strategies to maintenance issues, and therefore the cost-risk of the NPV calculation should be used to support asset management decisions

Assessing the payback from health R & D: From ad hoc studies to regular monitoring

Chapter 1 : Introduction • The increasing demands for the benefits of payback from publicly funded R&D to be assessed are based partly on the need to justify or account for expenditure on R&D, and partly on the desire for information to assist resource allocation and the better management of R&D funds. The former consideration is particularly strong in relation to the R&D expenditure that comes out of the wider NHS budget. • In this report a range of categories of payback will be identified along with a variety of methods for assessing them. • The aim of the report is to make recommendations as to how the outcomes from health research might best be monitored on a regular basis. The specific context of the report is the NHS R&D Programme but many of the issues will be relevant for a wide range of funders of health R&D. • The introduction sets out not only a plan of the report but also suggests that readers familiar with the general arguments and existing literature may choose to jump to Chapter 6. Chapter 2 : Review of Existing Approaches to Assessing the Payback from Research • Existing work describes various approaches to valuing research. Some are ex ante and attempt to predict the outcomes of research being considered, others are ex post or retrospective. • The five categories of benefit or payback from health R&D that have been identified involve contributions: to knowledge; to research capacity and future research; to improved information for decision making; to the efficiency, efficacy and equity of health care services; and to the nation’s economic performance. These are shown in Table 1 of the report • The process by which R&D generates final outcomes can be modelled as a sequence. This includes primary outputs such as publications; secondary outputs in the form of policy or administrative decisions; and final outcomes which comprise the health and economic benefits. Feedback loops are also introduced and mitigate the limitations of a linear approach. • Qualitative and quantitative approaches can be used but there are immense problems with time lags and attributing outcomes, and sometimes even outputs, to specific items of research funding. • Four common methods of measuring payback can be used. Expert review, by peers or, sometimes, users is the traditional way of assessing the quality of research. Bibliometric techniques can involve not only counting publications but also using datasets such as the Science Citation Index and Wellcome’s Research Outputs Database (ROD). The various methods of economic analysis of payback are difficult to undertake given the costs and problems of acquiring relevant information and estimating benefits. Social science methods include case studies, which can provide useful information but are resource intensive, and questionnaires to researchers and potential research users. Chapter 3 : Characteristics of a Routine Monitoring System • In moving from ad hoc or research studies of payback towards a more regular monitoring it is noted that whereas there has always been a tradition of evaluation of research, in the public services in general there is now a greater emphasis on audit and performance measurement and indicators. A review of these various systems suggests we should be looking to develop a system of outcomes monitoring that incorporates performance indicators (PIs) and measurement rather than an audit system that is trying to monitor activities against predetermined targets. • Standard characteristics of performance measurement systems do not necessarily apply to research where, for example, there are non-standard outputs. Difficulties have arisen in the USA in attempting to apply the Government Performance and Results Act to research funding agencies. It is shown that because the findings of basic research, in particular, enter a knowledge pool in which people and ideas interact, it is difficult to use a PIs’ approach to track eventual outcomes. However, for some types of health research it has proved more feasible to trace the flow between research outputs and outcomes. • An outcomes monitoring system could be useful if it met the following criteria: relevant to, with as comprehensive coverage as possible of, the funders objectives; relevant to the funder’s decision making processes; encourages accurate compliance; minimises unintended consequences; and has acceptable costs. Chapter 4 : Differences Between Research Types • The range of differences between types of research can be relevant for the design of a routine monitoring system. The OECD distinguishes between basic research, applied research and experimental development. Most DH/NHS research is applied. There might be more of a tradition of publication of findings in applied research in health than in other fields. Nevertheless, the publication and incentives patterns operating in basic research mean that it would be inappropriate to use bibliometric indicators in a simple way across all fields even in health research. • Despite having some differences from health research in publication patterns and in the detailed categories of payback, the broad approach proposed in Chapter 6 could be applied to social care research. • Research that is commissioned, especially by the government, has some of the minimum conditions built into it that are associated with outcomes being generated, in particular because the funder has identified that a contribution in this area will be valuable. Chapter 5 : What Units of Research? • The term programme has various meanings including being used to describe a collection of projects on a common theme and to describe a block of funding for a research unit. • Three main streams or modes of funding can be identified: projects, which are administratively grouped into programmes including a responsive programme; institutions/centres/units; individual researchers. These 3 streams are displayed in Figure 1. It is probable that the regular data-gathering for a monitoring system would operate at the basic level of each stream or mode. • Previous work demonstrates that the full range of benefits can sometimes be applied at the level of projects, either in the responsive mode or in programmes, through the use of questionnaires to researchers. Expert and user review and user surveys have also been applied. • Institutions and centres increasingly have experience not only of traditional periodic expert review but also of producing annual reports, although there are debates about what dimensions to include in such reviews and reports. • Individuals in receipt of research development awards have completed questionnaires during and after the awards. These concentrate on the development of research capacity but can go wider. Chapter 6 : A Possible Comprehensive Outcomes Monitoring System • The proposed system is intended for DH/NHS to monitor the outcomes from its R&D in order to justify the R&D expenditure and assist with managing the portfolio. More detailed information is required for the latter purpose. • We propose a multidimensional approach be adopted to cover all the dimensions of payback and that information be gathered from three sets of sources and Table 3 shows which methods would cover which output/outcome categories. • Firstly, possibly annually, a questionnaire (possibly electronic) covering most payback categories should gather data from the basic level of each funding stream ie. from lead researchers of projects, from research institutions/centres, and from individual award holders. • Secondly, supplementary information should be gathered from external databases (including the citation indices and Wellcome’s ROD). • Thirdly, a range of approaches ie. user surveys, reviews by experts and peers, case studies including economic evaluations, and analysis of sources used in policy documents such as NICE guidelines, would be undertaken on a sample basis. They would provide not only supplementary information but, as with the external databases, would also verify the data collected directly from researchers. • These proposals can be evaluated against the criteria set out in Chapter 3: • The system is relevant to DH’s objectives of generating payback in a range of categories. • Various problems have to be overcome before the system could be fully decision relevant. Firstly it might be necessary to ask researchers to apportion the contribution made to specific outputs from various funding streams. Second, to be decision relevant the information would have to be analysed and presented in a manner consistent with funders’ decision making processes. This would involve a) showing how for each outcome and output, for example publications, data from one project or stream could be compared with those from another and b) demonstrating how different outputs and outcomes could be aggregated. • The questions of accuracy of data, minimisation of unintended consequences and the acceptability of the net costs are also addressed. Chapter 7 : Research and Monitoring • Whilst this report is primarily concerned with moving from ad hoc studies towards a routine monitoring system there are issues that need further research. • Before embarking on full implementation the feasibility needs to be tested of items such as on-line recording of data and asking researchers to attribute proportions of research outputs to separate funding agencies. • Once the system is implemented the value of some items can be better assessed, for example the additional value provided by self reporting of publications beyond that gained from relying on external databases. • The data provided by the system would provide opportunities for further payback research on, for example, links between publications and other categories of payback. • Some items such as network analysis could potentially be added to the monitoring system after further examination of them. • Finally the benefit from the monitoring system itself should be assessed.Department of Health; Wellcome Trus

Situating the Next Generation of Impact Measurement and Evaluation for Impact Investing

In taking stock of the landscape, this paper promotes a convergence of methods, building from both the impact investment and evaluation fields.The commitment of impact investors to strengthen the process of generating evidence for their social returns alongside the evidence for financial returns is a veritable game changer. But social change is a complex business and good intentions do not necessarily translate into verifiable impact.As the public sector, bilaterals, and multilaterals increasingly partner with impact investors in achieving collective impact goals, the need for strong evidence about impact becomes even more compelling. The time has come to develop new mindsets and approaches that can be widely shared and employed in ways that will advance the frontier for impact measurement and evaluation of impact investing. Each of the menu options presented in this paper can contribute to building evidence about impact. The next generation of measurement will be stronger if the full range of options comes into play and the more evaluative approaches become commonplace as means for developing evidence and testing assumptions about the processes of change from a stakeholder perspective– with a view toward context and systems.Creating and sharing evidence about impact is a key lever for contributing to greater impact, demonstrating additionality, and for building confidence among potential investors, partners and observers in this emergent industry on its path to maturation. Further, the range of measurement options offers opportunities to choose appropriate approaches that will allow data to contribute to impact management– to improve on the business model of ventures and to improve services and systems that improve conditions for people and households living in poverty.

Performance Evaluation of the FBG Sensing Device and Comparison with Piezoelectric Sensors for Acoustic Emission Detection

In-service structural health monitoring (SHM) of engineering structures has assumed a significant role in assessing their safety and integrity. As the most mature technique in fiber-optic field, Fiber Bragg Grating (FBG) sensors have emerged as a reliable, in situ and nondestructive tool for monitoring and diagnostics in large-scale structure. Main objectives of this work are to evaluate and compare the acoustic emission (AE) sensing characteristics simultaneously with FBG sensor array and piezoelectric (PZ) sensors. The pencil-lead-break (PLB) test, ball dropping test and the excitation from the PZ transducer are treated as the AE source which conducted on the platy and blocky structure respectively for acoustic wave. The source repeatability will be verified to choose the source with more stable performance. A commercial 4-channel FBG AE detection device was used to compare with the PZ sensor on the amplitude and frequency response which can indicate the sensitivity of the sensors. The low sensitivity and low sampling rate are the main issue for the engineering application of the FBG sensors. Besides, the sensitivity and directional dependence of the FBG sensor have been discussed. It shows that the encapsulation method of the FBG sensor will impact both of them significantly

Assessing Learning-Centered Leadership: Connections to Research, Professional Standards, and Current Practices

Describes an assessment model designed to evaluate school leaders' performance. Unlike existing tools, this new system will assess both individuals and teams, and focuses specifically on instructional leadership and behaviors that improve learning

Performance Measurement in State Economic Development Agencies: Lessons and Next Steps for GDITT

The purpose of this project was to develop the basis for a comprehensive performance monitoring system for the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism. This performance monitoring system involved the development of performance measures as well as methods and processes for the collection, maintenance and reporting of the related data. As a result of the work completed for this project, GDITT has a workable set of performance measures for its major divisions: Economic Development, Film, Video and Music, International Trade, and Tourism. Report #9

Guidelines for data collection and monitoring for asset management of New Zealand road bridges

Publisher PD

What Makes A Court Problem-Solving: Universal Performance Indicators for Problem-Solving Justice

This report identifies a set of universal performance indicators for specialized "problem-solving courts" and related experiments in problem-solving justice. Traditional performance indicators related to caseload and processing efficiency can assist court managers in monitoring case flow, assigning cases to judges, and adhering to budgetary and statutory due process guidelines. Yet, these indicators are ultimately limited in scope. Faced with the recent explosion of problem solving courts and other experiments seeking to address the underlying problems of litigants, victims, and communities, there is an urgent need to complement traditional court performance indicators with ones of a problem-solving nature. With funding from the State Justice Institute (SJI), the Center for Court Innovation conducted an investigation designed to achieve three purposes. The first was to establish a set of universal performance indicators against which to judge the effectiveness of specialized problem-solving courts, of which there are currently more than 3,000 nationwide. The second purpose was to develop performance indicators specific to each of the four major problem-solving court models: drug, mental health, domestic violence, and community courts. The third purpose was to assist traditional court managers by establishing a more limited set of indicators, designed to capture problem-solving activity throughout the courthouse, not only within a specialized court context