WETICE 2004 Evaluating Collaborative Enterprises (ECE) Workshop - Final report

A summary of the fifth Evaluating Collaborative Enterprises (ECE) workshop which ran on June 14th at University of Modena, Italy. The overall theme of the workshop this year was evaluation within the software lifecyle rather than as a separate activity. Each of the five papers touched on this subject and the subsequent winner of Best Paper covered it thoroughly. Concerns about the level of interactivity within the workshop and WETICE itself prompted a format change to ``paired-paper'' sessions with plenty of discussion time. Several outstanding issus were identified during the discussion, including development of ``evaluation components'' alongside software components, the need to convince managers of the business case for evaluation and meta-evaluation of popular techniques with a view to avoiding studies that select inappropriate techniques or rely too heavily on one type of technique

Web-based support for managing large collections of software artefacts

There has been a long history of CASE tool development, with an underlying software repository at the heart of most systems. Usually such tools, even the more recently web-based systems, are focused on supporting individual projects within an enterprise or across a number of distributed sites. Little support for maintaining large heterogeneous collections of software artefacts across a number of projects has been developed. Within the GENESIS project, this has been a key consideration in the development of the Open Source Component Artefact Repository (OSCAR). Its most recent extensions are explicitly addressing the provision of cross project global views of large software collections as well as historical views of individual artefacts within a collection. The long-term benefits of such support can only be realised if OSCAR is widely adopted and various steps to facilitate this are described

Evaluation Factors for Multi-Stakeholder Broadband Visual Communication Projects

This paper presents a summary of multifaceted evaluation factors that we have identified through our research with Broadband Visual Communication (BVC) projects involving multiple stakeholders. The main benefit of these evaluation factors is that they provide a general evaluation framework for multiple stakeholder projects. The factors are social infrastructure, technical infrastructure, physical space, interaction style and content

VALUING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT THROUGH THE SOCIAL INCLUSION PROGRAMME (SICAP) 2015–2017 TOWARDS A FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATION. ESRI RESEARCH SERIES NUMBER 77 FEBRUARY 2019

The Social Inclusion and Community Activation Programme (SICAP) represents a major component of Ireland’s community development strategy, led by the Department of Rural and Community Development (DRCD). The vision of SICAP is to improve the opportunities and life chances of those who are marginalised in society, experiencing unemployment or living in poverty through community development approaches, targeted supports and interagency collaboration, where the values of equality and inclusion are promoted and human rights are respected. In 2016, total expenditure on SICAP amounted to approximately €36 million (Pobal, 2016a). Using a mixed methodology, this report examines the extent to which community development programmes can or should be subject to evaluation, with a particular focus on SICAP. In doing so, the report draws on a rich body of information – including desk-based research; consultation workshops with members of local community groups (LCGs), local community workers (LCWs) and other key policy stakeholders; and an analysis of administrative data held by Pobal – on the characteristics of LCGs that received direct support under SICAP. The findings in this report relate to the delivery of the SICAP 2015–2017 programme which ended in December 2017. The aim of the study is to inform policy by shedding light on a number of issues including the following. Can community development be evaluated? What are the current metrics and methodologies suggested in the literature for evaluating community development interventions? What possible metrics can be used to evaluate community development interventions and how do these relate to the SICAP programme? How can a framework be developed that could potentially be used by SICAP for monitoring evaluation of its community development programme