|
|
|
UNCST - Publications |
Feb 2007
| UNCST Policies & Guidelines | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Millennium Science Initiative
Project: Project Implementation, Plan & Operations Manual | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Introduction | Project Description | Project Indicators | Project Management: Budgets, Planning, Procurement & Finances | Annexes | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Project Description
2.1
Organizational and Administrative Structure
The UNCST is the main project implementing agency. It will
have the overall responsibility for project coordination and
implementation. Administrative structure within the UNCST will
administer MSI grants and manage the related outreach and
policy activities. Three tiers of management and
administration, each with explicit roles and responsibilities
detailed below, constitute the MSI’s governance structure: the
UNCST Executive Committee, the Technical Committee (TC), and
the UNCST Secretariati.
The UNCST Secretariat will be staffed by UNCST employees. The
institutional structure is depicted below.
Fig. 1. Administrative Structure for MSI Project
Implementation
2.1.1 The UNCST Executive Committee
2.1.2 The Technical Committee
a. Responsibilities:
The functions of the Technical Committee are:
i.
prepare the Calls-for-Proposals (CfP) for the MSI grants in
consultation with the UNCST Executive Committee2
as provided for in the MSI Project Implementation Plan (PIP);
ii. review initial project proposals and short list
finalist for each grant category;
iii. identify competent peer reviewers for full proposals,
with assistance from the UNCST Secretariat;
iv. select the best proposals for grant awards in
accordance with the criteria elaborated in the MSI Project
Implementation Plan;
v. review progress reports and other outputs of MSI grants
activities toward their stated research, capacity building,
networking, and outreach objectives and targets;
vi. review a consolidated annual report of MSI grants
compiled by the UNCST Secretariat based on annual program
reports from the research teams and other project participants
and forward the report with comments to the UNCST Executive
Committee; and
vii. facilitate international and national networking goals
consistent with MSI Project objectives as appropriate;
In carrying out the above functions, the TC shall foment a
culture of scientific integrity and promote
2 Note:
In the design and stakeholder consultation phases of MSI, the
lack of resources for modern equipment and other physical
investments was repeatedly cited as a major weakness of the
Ugandan national S&T system. [It was also noted that
investments are most productive when awarded to the most
highly-competitive, top quality research groups.] To respond
to this need, the MSI Funding Facility will emphasize, inter
alia, areas of research investigation that require significant
equipment and other physical investments. It will not be
limited only to these areas. For these reasons, the CFP
proposals may emphasize interest in the basic sciences
(biology, chemistry, mathematics, and physics), engineering,
biotechnology and bio-safety; information and communication
technology; indigenous knowledge and technologies; energy
technologies (renewable and non-renewable); material
science/construction technologies; water science and natural
resource management technologies; post-harvest/value addition;
manufacturing/industrial/innovation technologies.
b. Composition:
The Technical Committee (TC) will consist of 8 distinguished
scientists of international stature. Four of these will be
Ugandans, and four will be non-Ugandans. Two non-Ugandan
alternates will be asked to participate when primary
non-Ugandan members are not available. The Committee will
appoint one of the Ugandan members as a Committee
Chair/Convener. Technical Committee members will have an
appropriate diversity of backgrounds, with balanced
representation of scientific, technological, and
entrepreneurial areas. At the same time, all TC members will
have sufficient expertise in S&T to be able to make informed
judgments on the scientific and technical merits of
projects, in conjunction with the opinion of expert peer
reviewers.
c. Length and Conditions of Service.
Technical Committee members will serve for the duration of
the project. One (each) Ugandan and non-Ugandan alternate
member may be chosen, to serve when principal members are
unavailable. The TC Chairperson will serve as the liaison
to the Executive Committee.
d. Technical Committee Interaction with Project
Supervision.
The UNCST Executive Secretary and the World Bank Task Team
Leader have responsibilities for insuring the project is
carried out in accordance with the legal agreement between
the Government of Uganda and the World Bank. Toward this
end, the Executive Secretary of the UNCST and the World Bank
Task Team Leader may, with the non-objection of the Chair of
the Technical Committee, attend Technical Committee meetings
as observers, and provide relevant information on project
implementation procedures as requested by the TC. Neither
may vote nor offer any opinions regarding the technical
merit of individual proposals. Otherwise, TC meetings will
be closed, the confidentiality of proposals respected, and
only TC members will have input into Committee deliberations
on ranking or selection of proposals.
2.1.3 The UNCST Secretariat
UNCST will implement the project. The Executive Secretary
(ES) of the UNCST will have the overall responsibility for
project implementation. The ES will interact with the
Executive Committee and the Technical Committee on project
matters, and will oversee the UNCST Secretariat. Members of
the Executive Committee, the Technical Committee and the
UNCST Secretariat will not be eligible to participate in MSI
grant activities as project beneficiaries. Former members of
the Executive Committee will be eligible to participate in
MSI activities 30 days after their terms end.
2.1.4 Two Rounds of MSI Funding Facility Competition
The MSI Funding Facility will have two grant-awarding
competitions during the project. The initial round will
take place within one year of the project being declared
“Effective.” (Effectiveness is the last step in the
project’s formal approval process). Through Window A, this
first round will be expected to award grants to 2-3 Senior
Research Team and 4-5 emerging research teams. An
appropriate number of grants under Windows B and C for the
first round shall be determined at the discretion of the
Technical Committee, based on their judgment of the quality
of the final proposals.
One year later, a second round of funding will take place,
duplicating the first round in all aspects. The importance
of the two rounds is that it provides proponents whose
projects were not funded in Round One with an opportunity to
reflect on the feedback they received, improve their
proposals, and submit them a second time for
reconsideration. Round Two will be open to new proposals
not submitted in round one. After the second round, it is
expected that all available resources will have been
allocated. After roughly two and a half years of
implementation and after the two rounds of grant-awarding
are completed, the project will undergo its Mid-term
Review. If the MSI is making suitable progress toward its
development objectives, other development partners may be
invited to participate in the Mid-term Review. These
development partners may wish to contribute resources to the
Government that could be used for funding subsequent rounds
of MSI grant-awarding competition.
2.1.5 Selection Processes and Eligibility Criteria
The selection and administration procedures have been
designed according to international best practice, and
include: (a) timely ex-ante dissemination of rules
and guidelines for competing for resources to all potential
project proponents; (b) transparent, fair and merit-based
competition for resources; (c) resource allocation based on
independent review of proposals by scientific peers of
international standing; (d) concentration of resources for
the most qualified researchers; and (e) maximum
administrative efficiency for provision and use of resources
by principal investigators.
2.2 MSI Funding Activities
2.2.1 Component One: Research Grants
2.2.1.1 Window A: Grant funding for Research Teams
a. Window A Modes:
Window A funding will be awarded to research teams in two
modes.
Mode 1: Grants to Senior
Research Teams. Grants will be made to approximately 4 to 5 Senior Research Teams
for an initial term of three years. A consequential mid-term
review of each grant will be conducted after 18 months, and
progress towards the grants’ objectives will need to be
demonstrated at that time for continuation of funding. After
the grants conclude, Senior Research Teams in good standing
will not be excluded from resubmitting new proposals for
competitive consideration based on the availability of
funding.
Senior Research Teams will
consist of one principle investigator (PI), at least one
senior researcher, and/or an equal number of junior
researchers, and at least six postgraduate or graduate
students (at least two of whom would be expected to be Ph.D.
candidates). The Principal investigator will be a researcher
of established reputation in his or her particular field, with
demonstrated capacity to lead research teams and obtain high
quality scientific and managerial results. Senior
investigators will have sufficient expertise in their fields,
with established reputations for research results and
experience in the formation of human resources and
postgraduate training of students.
Grants amounts for Senior
Research Team Grants will be in the range of USD $500,000 to
USD $800,000 equivalent over the three year period. Budgets
must be fully justified (see Guidelines for Grant Proposals)
and commensurate with the research activities proposed. In
general, it is expected that roughly half of the grants
awarded shall be used for equipment expenditure and half for
recurrent expenditures, although this will vary with the needs
of the individual research programs. However, for any
individual grant, no more than 65% of resources can be spent
on equipment.
Mode 2: Grants for Research Teams. Grants will be made to 8 to 10 Research
Teams for a term of three years. A consequential mid-term
review of each grant will be conducted after 18 months, and
progress toward the grant objectives will need to be
demonstrated at that time for continuation of funding. After
the grant implementation period concludes, Research Teams in
good standing will not be excluded from competing for
continued funding, yet neither will they be given any special
consideration in the selection process.
Research Teams will consist of one Principal Investigator,
plus at least one associated junior or senior researchers, and
at least three postgraduate students. Lead Researchers must
demonstrate capacity to train postgraduate students in
research. The PI of each Research Team is expected to have
the potential to evolve into a researcher of the stature of a
Senior Research Team Leader.
Grant amounts for Research Team Grants will be in the range of
USD $100,000 to USD $250,000 equivalent over the three year
period. Budgets must be fully justified (see Guidelines for
Grant Proposals) and commensurate with the research activities
proposed. In general, it is expected that roughly half of
the grant will be for equipment expenditure and half for
recurrent expenditures, although this will vary with the needs
of the individual research programs. However, for any
individual grant, no more than 65% of resources can be spent
on equipment.
For both Senior Research Teams and Research Teams, all team
members will be expected to be fully engaged in research
activities and the research program. They are expected to
devote a high percentage of their time to these activities,
and to routinely be physically present at the research site.
Individuals who will not be so engaged in carrying out
research should be listed on the proposals as advisors to the
team, not as team members.
b. Eligibility and Selection
Research teams meeting the criteria above are encouraged to
apply. Research Teams may be based at Ugandan licensed
universities or Ugandan public or private research foundations
(such as NARO Institutes, the Joint Clinical Research Center,
the Ugandan Virus Research Institute, etc.). However,
proponents not at or formally connected to a degree-granting
institution will have to establish formal linkages for
training as part of completing the full proposals. Individuals
from the private sector may be incorporated into research
teams as warranted and at the discretion of the PI. Likewise,
individuals without formal academic credentials or
institutional affiliations may be included in grant proposals
where justified (for example, artisans in technological
projects aimed at improving their productivity). Individuals
may be included as part of only one proposal and may not be
part of any other applications to that Window. Non-Ugandan
Research Teams are not eligible; Ugandan firms may not apply
to Window A.
Full proposals must be accompanied by letters of endorsement
from the Research Teams’ host institutions. Endorsements
should state that the host institution is willing to assume
all responsibilities stipulated in this manual. In general,
these responsibilities will include: (i) provision of physical
space, and upgrading of buildings as necessary for
installation of equipment; (ii) agreement to maintain
researchers as faculty or employees and not to subtract
resources from their programs; (iii) agreement to have
financial management capacity and procurement capacity
reviewed by UNCST prior to finalization of the grant contract;
(iv) if capacity is deemed sufficient, agreement to provide
grant administration services in compliance of the
requirements of this manual, in return to a standard overhead
charge, not to exceed 5% of grant totals; (v) if capacity is
not deemed sufficient, agreement to allow the UNCST
Secretariat to provide procurement and financial management
services for the grant. The UNCST Secretariat and the World
Bank will determine the adequacy of these arrangements prior
to finalization of the research grant contracts. In cases
where institutional arrangements for grant administration are
not adequate, the host institution must agree to the
arrangements determined between the UNCST Secretariat and the
grantee, and agree to provide all necessary information and/or
access to project documentation to the UNCST Secretariat and
the World Bank.
c. A Two Stage Grant Application and Selection Process
The UNCST will publish and widely disseminate the Call for
Proposals (CFP) produced by the Technical Committee. The CFP
will specify the rules and procedures for the competition,
based on the stipulations in this manual, including dates,
selection criteria, a scoring system, and application
procedures.
Prior to the initiation of the competition, the UNCST
Secretariat will make various types of technical assistance
available to those who may wish to improve their grant
proposal writing capacity and/or gain a deeper understanding
about the proper completion of MSI proposals. This technical
assistance program will be known as the Better Research
Program, and additional details on it will be forthcoming from
UNCST.
Initial grant proposals will be completed by all proponents,
using the standard format contained in Annex Two of this
manual. Initial Proposals will consist of a short (3-5
pages) application giving the basic relevant details of the
proposed research, including goals, literature review of
related relevant research, team members, human resources
development, relevance, expected outputs, indicative budgets,
etc. Proposals that are not complete may be returned to
proponents for completion if submitted prior to the deadline.
After the deadline, no changes may be made to any proposals.
Proposals which are incomplete at the time of the deadline
will not be forwarded to the Technical Committee.
Completed proposals will be forwarded to the Technical
Committee members, who will review proposals individually and
deliberate collectively to rank the proposals according to a
system of Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, or Poor. The TC
will determine the shortlist based on these rankings.
Short-listed proponents will be notified and invited to
develop full proposals for submission. Unsuccessful
proponents will be notified in writing of: (i) the ranking
given to their proposal; (ii) the total number of proposals in
their category; (iii) the distribution of rankings of these
proposals; (iv) the cut-off point for the shortlist; and (vi)
any major comments from the TC on the substance of the
proposal. To the extent possible, comments will focus on how
the proposals might be improved. Unsuccessful proponents from
Round One will be encouraged to improve their proposals for
re-submission in Round Two.
d. Selection Criteria for Grants from Window A
Grants will be selected using the following criteria:
• Scientific and/or Technological Quality of the
Proposed Research. This will include the extent to
which, in the judgment of the peer reviewers and the Technical
Committee, the research activities proposed in any given field
address important scientific and technological questions, are
at or near the forefront of research in that specific
discipline, build on a superior understanding of previous
research findings as determined by the TC, and are
scientifically achievable.
• Relevance. This includes both near-term
relevance to national and local needs and long-term relevance
to improving S&T capacity in the country. Improvement of
capacity in the basic sciences is considered relevant to
project objectives. Other relevancy criteria will include the
extent to which research outputs (both human resources and
knowledge) can be used by the private sector or for improved
social service delivery.
• Human Resource Development Activities.
To be judged by assessing the extent to which the proposal
will significantly increase the quantity and efficiency with
which human resources are developed for S&T in Uganda. The
incremental numbers of postgraduate students will be a key
indicator for this criterion as will the ability to upgrade
existing Masters programs to full Ph.D. research programs.
• Track Record of the PI and Senior Researchers.
To be judged by previous research output, publication track
record in international peer reviewed journals, awards and
recognition, and formation of human resource development.
• Budgets Commensurate with Proposed Work.
Budgets in all full proposals will have to be justified in
detail. For instance, the proposal will need to detail each
piece of equipment costing more than US$ 10,000 equivalent,
state its purpose in the research program, and describe its
proposed use. Similarly, budget guidelines provided in this
manual must be used for all expenditure categories.
Proposals for which budgets are not fully justified or which
are not commensurate with the research proposed will not be
funded.
• Ancillary Categories. These following
characteristics will be considered “strongly encouraged but
not mandatory,” including: (a) local partnerships, especially
between more established and less established research
institutions and teams; (b) international partnerships,
including links to excellent institutions in the region and
globally that are involved in similar or complementary
research activities [note: with the exception of visiting
professors and other specific expenditure categories
enumerated in the Operations Manual, no funds from MSI grants
may be used to fund external research partners] (c)
multi-disciplinary research and research teams—encouraged
where appropriate to further the overall goals of the
research; (d) regional diversity and the creation of research
capacity in areas in which such strength does not currently
exist in the country; (e) sharing of equipment and
infrastructure—when possible and desirable, proposals may
include ways in which equipment acquired under the grant can
be made available for researchers and activities not directly
involved in the Research Team;
e. Evaluation Process for Full Proposal and “Portfolio
Criteria”
Short listed proponents will be given time and access to
modest resources (not to exceed USD 5000, managed by the UNCST
Secretariat) to develop their initial proposals into Full
Proposals. At this stage proponents will be required to
furnish letters of support from their host institutions. They
will also need to justify budgets in detail, according to the
expenditure guidelines in this manual. Full Proposals should
contain CVs of all proposed team members. They should also
describe in much more detail the content of the proposed
research program.
At the time of short-listing, the TC will identify three ad
hoc peer reviewers to review each proposal. The peer
reviewers will be recognized experts in the subject areas of
the given proposal. Peer reviewers may review more than one
proposal and shall be encouraged to submit extensive written
comments on the proposals, in addition to assigning each a
rank.
At the time of final grant selection, the TC members will be
physically present in Uganda. TC members may conduct site
visits to the laboratories of finalists or have the finalists
make presentations on the proposals and reply to questions.
Peer reviewers and the Technical Committee members will rank
each proposal with the same qualitative grading system of
“Excellent; Very Good; Good; Fair; Poor” used for ranking
initial proposals. In addition, the Technical Committee may
assign weights to different scoring categories. The final
ranking system will be explained in its entirety in the Call
for Proposals.
The Technical Committee will be charged with selecting a
portfolio of funded projects which, as a whole, serve the
purposes of the project and the country and are likely to have
the largest total impact. This could mean that if several
proposals from the same discipline (biology, for example)
score highest for scientific quality, the committee may only
choose the top one or two, and then choose other projects with
better scores on relevance or other criteria.
As part of this “portfolio” approach, all proposals must
include a full disclosure of all other current areas of
research support for all listed scientists, and all pending
applications. The TC will consider two aspects of “other
funding” in its decision process. On the one hand, existence
of other funding validates ability and adds to the
researchers’ ability to work on a sustainable basis. On the
other hand, the MSI grants will not be most effective if they
provide resources to those teams that are already well funded
from other sources—that is, if there is higher added value in
funding other teams. Therefore, consideration of the marginal
impact of additional funding will form part of overall
decision-making for selection of grantees. Failure to
disclose all funding sources will make an application void, or
be grounds for ex-post cancellation of awarded grants.
The TC will select the grant winners. It will send these
names, along with a report on its deliberations to the UNCST
Executive Committee. The UNCST Executive Committee will
verify that project procedures have been observed, and, if so,
the grant selection process will be concluded and winners will
be notified in writing. If the UNCST Executive Committee
determines procedures have not been observed, it will discuss
this with the TC and request that appropriate measures be
taken. The UNCST Executive Committee will not offer opinions
on the substance of the decisions, nor suggest any alterations
to the TC’s decisions on grounds of substance, rather, only on
matters of procedure.
f. Reporting and accountability requirements
Grantees will be required to report to the UNCST, the TC, the
World Bank and the public in the following ways, inter alia:
• Provide detailed financial management and procurement
reporting and financial statements as described in Annex One
of this manual.
• Provide annual reports to UNCST on the physical
progress of the research program or other activities toward
their approved goals and objectives.
• Periodically meet with, exchange views, and provide
access to project activities and documentation to the UNCST,
the TC, visiting project evaluators, and the World Bank.
In addition, and perhaps most importantly, grant recipients
will be expected to participate in activities involving the
Ugandan public at large. This may involve presenting their
findings to interested group (as organized by UNCST), or
participating in the Outreach Program by making visits to
secondary schools, briefing government officials or members of
the university community on their work, and other such events
of this nature.
g. Other Issues
For the period of the grant, equipment purchased with grant
resources will be under the sole control of the PI and
grant-recipient. It will be housed at the PI’s host
institution, but the PI will be the sole authority for all
decisions regarding its use and who may access it. This is
necessary to insure that the equipment serves the purposes of
producing the intended results of the research program. The
PI may, at her or his discretion, allow others to use the
equipment for legitimate research purposes, provided this does
not interfere with the ability of the research team to carry
out their obligations under the grant. At the conclusion of
the grant implementation period, the equipment will remain in
the same physical setting so long as the PI and the research
team are still substantially in tact and active. However, at
this point, the PI will no longer have the exclusive rights to
its use. Rather, its use will be governed by normal policies
of the host institution.
In the event the PI can no longer continue as head of the
research team or there are substantial changes to the
compositions of the research team (such as illness or death of
a member), the host institution will inform the UNCST
immediately. The host institution will be given a reasonable
period (three months approximately) to propose a substitute
for the PI, with equivalent qualifications. If the Technical
Committee approves the proposed individual, grant
implementation may continue. The Technical Committee may
reject the proposal and give the institution a short period
(maximum six months) to find a suitable substitute for the PI,
who may come from outside of the host institution. If no
suitable candidate can be found, the grant will be cancelled
or modified in accordance with the recommendation of the
Technical Committee.
If the PI wishes to change institutions or changes
institutions, it is incumbent on her or him to inform the
UNCST of this situation. If the research team will remain
substantially in tact and the objectives of the research
program are not jeopardized by the move, the TC will approve
the continuation of grant implementation, including physical
transfer of the equipment to the PI’s new institution (so long
as the host institution meets the MSI eligibility criteria).
If the move will cause significant disruption to the research
team or prevent the team from achieving the goals on the basis
of which the grant was approved, the TC may recommend
cancellation of the grant.
PIs are expected to include a budget for maintenance in their
grant proposals and to use these earmarked grant funds to keep
equipment in working order at all times. PI’s should plan
carefully for maintenance, as the MSI will not make additional
funds for maintenance available to grantees outside the
grants.
2.2.1.2 Window B: Upgrading or Creation of Undergraduate
Programs in Science and Engineering
This subcomponent of the MSI will fund the upgrading or
creation of undergraduate programs in the basic sciences and
engineering at licensed public and private universities. It
seeks to fund a total of 4-6 degree programs: upgrading of
2-3 existing programs and the creation of 2-3 new programs. It
is expected that for both upgrading and creation, at least one
program will be in the basic sciences, one in technology, and
one “open” or not pre-determined. It is also expected that
creation of new programs will be at private as well as public
universities. All four public universities plus all chartered
and licensed private universities will be invited to submit
proposals for participation in Window B.
The competition and grant award process for Window B grants
shall be similar to that for Window A in most respects. The
competition for Window B grants will be announced as part of a
simultaneous set of CFPs. It will involve initial proposals,
creation of a shortlist of finalists by the Technical
Committee, written reviews of final proposals by ad hoc peer
reviewers, and selection of grantees by the Technical
Committee.
The time periods for submission of Initial Proposals will be
at least 60 days for both Window A and B and 60 days for
submission of finalized full proposals following the
announcement of finalists. There are however, small
differences between Window A and B procedures. Window B
finalist will be given access to more resources in this 60 day
period to improve their proposals (not to exceed USD 10,000
equivalent, managed by the UNCST Secretariat). Also, Window B
proposals will be reviewed according to the selection criteria
of Window A proposals (with due consideration to the
differences in programs for training versus research) as well
as the additional criteria listed below.
a. Contents of Window B Proposals
Successful proposals will make clear the purpose and intended
audience of the program and will have four components: (i)
plans for development of curricula to internationally-accepted
levels of quality (which also encourages innovation and new
approaches to instruction); (ii) laboratory and infrastructure
development plans, fully commensurate with and integrated into
proposed curricula; (iii) staffing plans—including for the
contracting of new full-time staff, as well as visiting
professors; and, (iv) with respect to student demand, student
recruitment and development plans, which may include
incentives to attract students into science disciplines, and
remedial activities for students who lack appropriate
preparation.
Programs should lead to a recognized first degree, but may
also include activities to expose non-science majors to
science as part of the breadth requirements suggested by the
Uganda National Council for Higher Education. In this regard,
the MSI would fund bridging courses to allow students with
inadequate S&T exposure to catch up and pursue new fields.
Additionally, it would provide incentives to top science
undergraduate students (such as provision of laptop computers
or other necessary equipment). Curricula could emphasize
training for entrepreneurial/business skills along with
mastery of science content.
Where applicable, proposals might include common or shared S&T
infrastructure and facilities as part of the outreach
activities envisaged to foster greater access to S&T teaching
and learning facilities.
b. Selection Process
Projects in this category will also undergo a competitive peer
review process initiated by a letter of invitation to
compete. The letter and CFP emitted by the Technical
Committee will specify the steps and dates for each part of
the process.
As a first step, institutions wishing to compete will submit
Initial Proposals according to the template in this manual.
The Technical Committee will select a short-list of finalists
who will have 60 days to develop Full Proposals. Finalists
will be given technical assistance and access to a small
budget (managed by UNCST Secretariat) to assist in the
development of Full Proposals.
c. Selection Criteria
The main selection criteria will be the perceived ability for
the applying institutions to upgrade or create a degree
program and other educational opportunities of the highest
possible quality in the sciences and/or engineering
disciplines. Full Proposals will be reviewed with respect to:
(i) the scientific and/or technological quality of the
proposed program of education and training; (ii) the relevance
of the proposed program to national needs; (iii) the ability
of the program to develop significant quantities of high
quality human resources; (iv) the track records and
professional expertise of the individuals to be involved; (v)
the extent to which the budget is commensurate with the needs
of the program; and (vi) the ancillary categories first
described above.
In addition, successful proposals will be selected to the
extent they have the following:
• Plans for development of curricula to
internationally-accepted levels of quality, which also
encourage innovation and new approaches to instruction
• Laboratory and infrastructure development plans, fully
commensurate with and integrated into proposed curricula
• Staffing plans—including for the contracting of new
full-time staff as well as visiting professors, and for the
eventual assumption of incremental staff costs by the
institutions at the end of the grant period [Note: salary
contracts for staff will be structured in such a way that
institutions gradually assume a greater percentage of these
costs as the grant progresses]
• Student recruitment and development plans, which may
include incentives to attract students into science
disciplines and remedial activities for students who lack
appropriate preparation
d. Timetable for Implementation
Where grants are sponsoring the creation of wholly new
programs, it is recognized that the implementing institutions
will not be able to jump from having no programs to having
full-fledged degree programs in a short period of time.
Successful proposals will have recognized this and built in an
adequate transitional plan. Grant-receiving institutions will
then implement this transition period of 1-2 years in which to
make the degree programs fully operational. Intermediate
activities would build up to this full implementation phase.
Where grants are sponsoring the upgrading of existing
institutions, the transitions will be shorter. Upgrading
should take place as quickly as feasible, without causing
undesirable disruptions in the programs. Successful proposals
will describe the transition to full implementation.
2.2.1.3 Window C: Private Sector Cooperation
The main goal of activities under this Window is to give firms
greater access to technology and skills and link academia and
industry. These linkages are expected, to promote growth and
accelerate the transition to a more science-and-technology
driven economy with a critical mass of well-trained scientists
and engineers focused on the needs of industry.
Private sector cooperation will be organized around research
topics defined by and useful to the private sector. Window C
will support: (i) grants for “Technology Platforms” through
which firms and researchers eventually define collaborative
agendas for solving problems of direct interest to industry,
and then pursue solutions collaboratively; and (ii) formal
firm-based internships for students in science, engineering,
and business administration, allowing interns the opportunity
to gain exposure to the “real life problems” facing the
private sector.
Technology Platforms will be forums that seek: (i) to define a
set of technological problems facing firms to which research
or consultation could provide solutions; (ii) to identify and
evaluate technologies that exist and are used outside of
Uganda and could profitably be transferred for use
domestically, and (ii) to work together, in a possibly
different configuration, to carry out collaboratively the
research and development issues identified. A Platform usually
consists of multiple firms, or in exceptional cases of one
firm, and one or more university/research institute partners.
In Mode I, funds will finance both the cooperative evaluation
of technologies and the definition of shared R&D problems
confronting the partners participating in the Platform. In
Mode II, Mode I grantees will be eligible to apply for funding
to carry out the R&D agenda developed in Mode I as a
collaboration between firms and university/research institute
partners.
Examples of the kind of targeted, specific, technology-related
challenges firms and firm-led teams could identify and
evaluate in Mode I platforms and further investigate in Mode 2
platforms might include:
• A floriculture firm working with agricultural
scientists and other researchers to evaluate the potential for
new plant varieties to be profitably grown and exported from Uganda
• A food processing firm seeking to know if new process
control or refrigeration technologies could be profitably
employed in their production lines
• A services firm considering investments in information
technology seeking to understand the options available outside
of Uganda
• A medical testing laboratory seeking to know if they
might profitably expand the number and ranges of testing
services offered by investing in new equipment
• Under what conditions could aquaculture be
commercially viable and environmentally sustainable in Uganda?
• What are the commercial possibilities for processing
of starch from plantains?
• Can the quality of construction materials used in
Uganda be improved and costs lowered?
• Can transportation firms improve their productivity
and profitability by investing in computer-based management of
their vehicles and routes?
• How could Ugandan agricultural products be certified
as organic and would doing so raise their market value?
The internships are based on formal agreements between a firm
and one or more universities in which the number of training
places, level of training, assistance and supervision by
company and university staff, as well as involvement of
company staff in focusing the university curriculum is
specified in the CFP and in contracts that will entered into
in advance of program commencement.
As the MSI’s focus on the institutional strengthening of the
Uganda Industrial Research Institute underscores that
institution’s pivotal role in promoting the importance of
technology for industrialization and the need for strong
linkages between R&D and firms, UIRI is to play an active role
in promoting and facilitating the Technology Platforms.
However, the UIRI itself cannot be among the formal applicants
for Window C funding. Its expertise must be made available to
all Platforms for preparing proposals, for providing
‘headquarter’ facilities if necessary, and as needed during
the implementation phase. With respect to the latter, only
costs incurred by UIRI in the implementation of R&D activities
of Mode 2 Platforms, and identified beforehand in the
proposal, will be eligible costs.
Funding in this Window will also be accessed through a
peer-reviewed, competitive grant process, although one that is
modified to take into account the special characteristics of
the Technology Platforms and the Internship Programs. A
Subcommittee of the Technical Committee will review and select
proposals and activities to be funded under Window C. The
Subcommittee will consist of three of the eight TC
members—including at least one Ugandan and one non-Ugandan.
Sub-committee members will be chosen by the TC for, inter
alia, their experience with academic-industry linkages,
commercialization of research, and other relevant expertise.
The Subcommittee will be responsible to draft an open,
continuous, or “standing” CFP for Window C, so that proposals
can be received on an on-going basis to respond to the needs
of the private sector for rapidity. The CFP will make explicit
the goals, selection process and criteria, contracting and
implementation procedures, and accountability and monitoring
procedures for both sets of activities under Window C.
The CFP will specify that all proposals shall be sent to the
UNCST Secretariat for forwarding to the Window C
Subcommittee. UIRI is allowed to receive a copy of all
proposals. The UNCST Secretariat will acknowledge receipt of
the proposals in writing to the proponents. As and when
appropriate, the Subcommittee will identify one Ugandan and
one non-Ugandan peer reviewer per proposal for written
opinions within 10 working days of receiving the proposal from
the UNCST Secretariat. In addition the Executive Director of
the UIRI will be given the opportunity, which he may or may
not use, to provide his comments on each proposal to the
Subcommittee. The Subcommittee will deliberate on the
proposals and the peer reviews and UIRI opinions to the extent
they have come in, virtually on a two-monthly basis, so that
maximally three months will lapse between submission and
approval.
Unlike Windows A and B for which proposals must be accepted or
rejected as they are received and may not be conditionally
accepted after the closing of the call, for Window C the
Subcommittee may return a proposal to the proponents with
suggested improvements or conditions that, if met, would make
it eligible for funding.
a. Technology Platforms: Mode 1
In Mode 1, up to $50,000 will be made available to have firms
and university/research institute partners define together
technological problems facing firms, to conduct searches for
and evaluate available technologies and to propose, if
appropriate further research and development work. In
exceptional cases a Platform may consist of one firm and one
university/research institute partner. With an emphasis on
technology scanning, the monies elicited by eligible, winning
Platforms through Mode 1 can be used to: (1) crystallize
understanding of the specific technology-related challenge
facing the firms, (2) conduct a local, national, and
international search for and technical evaluation of available
technologies to respond to this challenge, (3) conduct an
initial business-planning exercise to get a reasonable idea of
the cost-effectiveness and market potential of
transferring/adapting/importing/applying any identified
technological solution, and (4) prepare an R&D proposal to
develop/adapt/modify the identified technological solution in
partnership with other firms, university research staff or
research institute affiliates.
Mode 1 seeks to respond quickly to the needs of industry to
understand what types of technology can reasonably be expected
to lead to increased profitability and growth for a given
firm. As such, each proposal must evaluate qualitatively and
quantitatively the technology under consideration as a
potential tool for increased productivity, revenue and
profitability, and result in specific recommendations for the
adoption or adaptation of available technologies, and for any
R&D necessary in that case, or against such adoption.
To achieve this end, a project would consider a range of
issues that bear on the profitable use of new technologies
including, but not limited to, its ability to reduce costs,
increase outputs, improve quality, meet currently unmet market
demands, and/or create profitable new products. Each project
must combine the technical assessment of identified
technologies’ capabilities with an initial financial
assessment of cost-impact, and an initial market assessment of
increased business opportunities. Therefore, it is expected
that teams would contain specialists in particular
technologies, along with specialists in finance and marketing.
Teams of researchers at universities or research institutes
(students and/or staff), along with scientists, engineers, or
managers from firms and companies will develop proposals
jointly. To be eligible, all proposals must have the
substantial involvement of at least one active firm (a “going
concern”) whose technical or management staff dedicate
significant time to the proposal.
All proposals must be submitted using the standard Grant
Application Form based on Annex Two.
b. Technology Platforms: Mode 2
The aim of Mode 2 activities is to construct solutions to
those technological challenges identified in Mode 1 by having
strengthened partnerships between firms, scientists and
engineers from universities and/or research institutes,
carrying out R&D and possibly engineering activities. At the
conclusion of Mode 2, concrete innovative products,
technological modifications, and augmentation of services or
production processes should be ready for acceptance by firms
thereby commencing a new business development trajectory.
Only those teams that successfully elicited Mode 1 funding are
eligible to participate in Mode 2. Eligible teams will likely
include the same team membership of firms, university and
research staff partners participating in Mode 1. Proposals
may be augmented by the addition of groups of companies and
private-sector associations, or universities and research
institutes backed by such private-sector organizations.
Proposals that do not include both significant participation
of private sector partners and clear demonstration of the
importance to firms of the problems identified for
technological amelioration will not be funded.
Grant amounts of up to US$ 150,000 will be made available to
fund a range of activities including: (1) the clarification
and further definition of the firm’s problems and focused,
short-term analyses and feasibility studies that shed light on
the potential solutions to the problems, (2) research and
other activities such as technological development and
adaptation, and (3) analysis needed to confirm the
cost-effectiveness of these solutions, bring them into
practice, or advance knowledge about them so as to make their
use by industry more feasible.
Most of those firm-based problems identified for both Mode 1
and Mode 2 support would address specific obstacles to
discrete business challenges facing firms. However, some
eligible teams might focus on issues of concern to firms
across an industry or even from several industries, such as
embedded software technologies, energy efficiency
technologies, mechanical engineering technologies, packaging
technologies, or food processing technologies.
Proponents will submit standard Grant Application Forms based
on Annex Two. The MSI UNCST Secretariat shall verify the
completeness of the information in these forms before
forwarding them to the Window C Subcommittee of the Technical
Committee. The Subcommittee will submit them for peer review
and decide on funding on the basis of an assessment of the
adequacy and potential success of the proposed platforms.
The costs associated with purchasing and employing the
technologies involved will have to be borne by the firms
themselves, possibly assisted by financial support from the
Technology Acquisition Fund under Component 2 of the World
Bank’s Second Private Sector Competitiveness Project. Eligible
expenses under this Technology Acquisition Fund include
procurement of patents or manufacturing rights, procurement of
prototypes or new quality control equipment and staff training
to conform to international standards.
c. Technology Internships
A second set of Window C activities is also oriented around
bridging the academia-private sector divide in Uganda.
Through a Technology Internship program, grants will be made
available to support structural agreements between companies
and one or more universities to increase the level of
practical training for students in science and technology,
their work orientation, the private-sector relevance of the
curriculum, and the links between university staff and
participating firms. Diploma-granting vocational and
technical training institutes will also be considered for
inclusion in the internship agreements.
Internship program proposals may be designed by staff of
companies, university faculties, or by groups of students. The
agreements which will be part of the proposals will describe
the mutual obligations to which the partners will comply.
These will include at least the number of training places the
company will make available, the level and content of the
training to be provided–the duration of which can vary from 3
months to 9 months, the assistance (e.g. 1 day per week) to be
received from company and teaching-institute staff, feed-back
mechanisms, and the links to be built between companies and
teaching-institute staff. Following their training period,
participating Interns will be required to submit proposals to
improve a particular aspect of the companies’ operations.
These proposals must have a firm supervisor and may have a
university supervisor as well.
It is expected that companies will invest some money of their
own to finance the Technology Internship program, but this
will be complimented by fixed levels of support for the
training positions they make available and for the assistance
of company staff (e.g. on the basis of 20% of staff time).
The Internship Program will include an annual conference with
the faculty from relevant disciplines from which Technology
Interns are drawn, the participating (receiving) firms, and
the Interns themselves. This annual conference will provide a
forum to discuss such issues as: (1) preparedness of Interns
to contribute to firm-level demands, (2) perceived relevance
and adequacy of Interns’ training and study at their
universities to needs of firms, and (3) ideas for
strengthening and broadening the Technology Intern program.
Success of the Intern program will be assessed based on firms’
commitments to offering Interns jobs following their
experience with the program.
The UNCST Secretariat will develop a detailed internship
program manual.
2.2.1.4 Technical Assistance for Grant Proponents and
Research Managers: The Better Research Program
The MSI Funding Facility will include a large program of
technical assistance for grant proponents and research
managers. Researchers, professors, entrepreneurs, managers,
and administrators will have access to workshops and
consulting services on relevant topics designed to elevate the
quality of their grant writing skills and research management
abilities.
For researchers and those interested in applying for research
grants, a comprehensive technical assistance program will
focus on ways to improve:
• Research problem formulation
• Research program design
• Collaboration with scientific, technological, and
private sector partners
• Grant proposal writing (both for MSI grants and in
general)
• Management of research
• Publication and dissemination of research results
• Commercial potential of research outputs (intellectual
property issues).
This suite of technical assistance activities will also help
researchers identify other potential sources of funding as
alternatives to the MSI Funding Facility.
For professors, Vice Chancellors, and others involved in
undergraduate and graduate training, technical assistance will
focus on planning for upgrading or creation of new degree
programs in S&T disciplines, issues of remedial training for
students in the sciences, and reviews of best practice and
incentives for improving education quality in sciences and
engineering.
MSI Proponents will be the primary target audience for this
technical assistance, but to the extent feasible, programs
will also provide activities and services for other
researchers and stakeholders who may not participate in MSI,
but who wish to improve their capacities in these areas.
2.2.2 Component Two: Outreach, Institutional Strengthening
and Policy Activities
2.2.2.1 Outreach Program
Public understanding of science, technology, and their role in
national development appears to be comparatively low in
Uganda. Many Ugandans view science and technology issues as
abstruse and irrelevant to their lives and well-being.
Communication links between scientists, policymakers, and the
general public have traditionally been weak. With some notable
exceptions, science and engineering careers have not been seen
as financially or professionally rewarding, despite reasonable
evidence to the contrary. The S&T community generally has not
been successful in communicating the importance of science to
national development nor the potential opportunities for
career and personal fulfillment that can come through science
and technology.
As a result, and coupled with lack of
investments, the Uganda public and especially school children
have an inadequate understanding of science and its role in
society; it is often viewed as both very difficult as a
subject area and irrelevant to personal, social, or economic
progress. Until recently, the debates—and follow-on actions—on
science policy have lacked coherence and depth. The MSI will
address this problem through a series of outreach and special
activities.
The MSI Outreach Program will sponsor activities to improve
public understanding of and appreciation for science. The
principal activities of the Outreach Program will be: (i) a
series of structured schools visits by scientists,
technologists, engineers, and S&T-related entrepreneurs;
(ii) an annual National Science Week program during which
various kinds of social marketing and awareness raising on
science and technology issues will take place including the
announcement of the winners of the MSI Funding Facility
competitions in years one and two;
(iii) a public information
campaign for the MSI designed to clearly communicate to all
stakeholders the objectives and content of the program, and
especially the opportunities available through it.
a. The School Visits Program
UNCST will contract a firm specializing in marketing and
public relations to organize and administer the School Visits
Program. This firm will include individuals with specialized
expertise in the public understanding of science and/or
science education. The firm will develop a set of activities
for short (half-day) visits to secondary schools throughout
Uganda for the purpose of raising students’ awareness and
understanding of science and technology issues.
b. National Science Week
National Science Week will be composed of a series of events
for and by the science, technology, and entrepreneurial
community to highlight the role of science in national
development and Uganda’s progress toward increasing its
national science and technology capacity. The format for
National Science Week will be flexible and UNCST will engage a
firm to help with planning and organization.
c. Public Information Campaign
The success of the MSI depends upon key stakeholders’ timely
access to complete information about the project.
Researchers, firms, students, and others throughout Uganda
need to know what the project is and how they can take
advantage of the opportunities it affords. UNCST may engage a
firm to assist in this task. In addition to the dissemination
of the projects’ documentation (including this manual),
specialized public information materials will be developed and
disseminated. These activities will also relate closely to
those under the M&E subcomponent to develop and maintain
accurate databases with contact information for potential
beneficiaries and stakeholders. For example, the database of
firms that may wish to apply for Technology Platforms or
create Technology Internship Programs would facilitate direct
mailing campaigns to make information available and for
surveys that solicit monitoring and evaluation data from firms
on their use of technology and science skills.
2.2.2.2 Institutional Strengthening Activities
The project will strengthen selected S&T-related agencies, in
particular the UNCST and the UIRI. For the UNSCT, the
implementation of the MSI is a major catalyst in its
transformation toward a focused organization that puts at
center stage the promotion of practical ways for S&T to
contribute to private sector growth and attainment of the PEAP
objectives. The UIRI has been given the mandate to play the
leading role in strengthening the technology base of primary
sector, manufacturing, and service industries. Restructuring
and strengthening of both institutions is described in greater
depth below.
a. Uganda National Council for Science and Technology
This subcomponent will provide support and technical
assistance for the restructuring and strengthening of the
UNCST with the goal that it shall become more focused on
deliverable outputs and policy implementation as a result of
these efforts. In May 2005 the Government announced its
intention to restructure the UNCST to improve its
effectiveness. An institutional assessment of the UNCST
conducted in July 2005 described the Council’s current core
activity as the formulation of broad policies for science and
technology. This has led to the creation of various policy
frameworks that have, unfortunately, not received budgetary
commitment or institutional follow through.
In line with the recommendations of the institution’s
assessment, the restructuring and strengthening of UNCST will
concentrate on:
• Focusing UNCST’s activities on a reduced number of
high priority areas
• Increasing the emphasis on implementing programs,
notably the MSI
• Reorganizing its structure and management
• Adopting strengthened internal mechanisms
• Upgrading skill levels and administrative procedures
• Providing for a modern and efficient working
environment
The planned reforms are captured in six areas of
concentration, each with specific annual work plans and
outputs.
First, the increased emphasis on implementation will ensure
professional implementation of the MSI.
The UNCST Secretariat’s structure will be revamped to allow it
to exercise effective control over the new focus areas. The
new Secretariat will be reorganized into two divisions: one
for policy and one for operations. The policy division shall
be responsible for:
• Annual analysis of S&T activities and expenditure
• S&T human capital development reports
• Policy recommendations for S&T in economic and
industrial development
• Advice to government on occasional/ad-hoc S&T topics
(with UNAS)
The policy division will have
responsibility for numerous sectoral monitoring and evaluation
• Support to research through competitive funding
mechanisms (including the MSI)
• Safety and ethics regulation and compliance (including
Bio-Safety) services
The operations division will house the Research Funding Unit.
Over time, the MSI Funding Facility and the UNCST Secretariat
will transition from donor-financed entities to a
domestically-financed national science funding system.
The strengthening of internal mechanisms will result in
deliverables such as more formal and transparent procedures
between the Council, the Executive Committee, the Executive
Secretary and UNCST staff, formalized through such
accomplishments as the adoption of 5-year Corporate Plans to
be used as frameworks for planning and budgeting.
b. Uganda Industrial Research Institute
The Uganda Industrial Research Institute has the official
mandate to be the focal point for technological development of
the industrial sector (including the primary sector and the
services industries sector) in Uganda. It will also administer
the Innovation and Industrialization Fund.
• serve as a demand-led institute
• stress partnerships with industry, universities,
research institutes and relevant government agencies
• employ a critical mass of qualified staff
• maintain state-of-the-art technical facilities
• support central and decentralized incubation and
business development facilities
UIRI will work in close cooperation with the other agencies
that perform complementary functions for Uganda’s industrial
development. The Uganda Investment Authority, which is one of
these, has recently been given the new role to hold and
develop industrial land and parks to fulfill its objective of
encouraging foreign investment. Other relevant partnering
agencies include the National Bureau of Standards, which is
responsible for setting, monitoring and enforcing standards
and for raising awareness of the importance of standards in
quality assurance, and the Uganda Export Promotion Board.
To achieve UIRI’s long-term vision requires considerable
institutional strengthening. New functions such as
facilitating technology transfer, technology evaluation and
assessment, innovation and applied research, offering broader
incubation services, advisory and consultancy services, as
well as providing deeper insight into the position of the
Ugandan industrial sector, its technical needs, and also in
technical and market opportunities each challenge UIRI’s
current capability. To substantially augment current
capability in these areas, MSI support will concentrate on:
• Links to industry, priority setting,
technology/industry resource centre. The MSI will
facilitate UIRI’s ability to undertake the systematic
development of links to industry as well as needs
identification and consequent priority setting. A study to
collect baseline information on the status and current needs
of the industrial sector (technologies in use, major outputs,
manpower and skills levels, unfulfilled needs, supplier
chains, etc.) is vital to kick-start this MSI subcomponent.
The resource center will develop and maintain for use by
industry, investors, policy makers, planners and research
organizations a well catalogued database of information about
industry, including relevant expertise and research results
and projects in academia and research institutes. Access to
relevant international data will also be developed.
• Pilot plants, laboratories, engineering workshops.
There is a need for rehabilitation and strengthening of
pilot plants and analytical laboratory facilities. Industrial
demand dictates priority to be given to the dairy and fruit
juice processing industry. Establishing engineering workshops
is paramount when creating facilities for technology
development as the priority for technology development is the
introduction of improved manufacturing technology.
• Technology Development Centre. Building up a
technology development centre that will provide consultancy
services and advise on innovations and applied research,
instrumentation, design and engineering, technology assessment
and transfer, and is located within a short geographic
distance of extended analytical laboratories constitutes
another dimension of UIRI institutional strengthening via the
MSI.
• Incubation services. Strengthening its
incubation services which at present are concentrated on
largely decentralized support for ICT business development is
a high priority for UIRI institutional strengthening. The UIRI
has demonstrated its capacity in this area by acquiring
internationally competitive support in this area.
• General purpose infrastructure. Strengthening
the ICT and office infrastructure at UIRI is also entailed in
MSI support under this subcomponent.
Table 1: MSI 5-Year Budget
IDA Q4870-UG
5 Year Project Budget
(in US Dollars)
Activity
Disbusmt
Project Components and Activities
TOTAL
Code
category
(000)
Part 1
Component 1: Millenium Science Initiative (MSI) Fund
C1.1.0
1(a)
A. Grants to Research Teams
5,750
C1.2.0
1(b)
B.Upgrading existing & creating new undergraduate programs
7,500
C1.3.0
1(c )
C. University-Industry Cooperative Platforms
Sub-Total 1. Millenium Science Initiative (MSI) Fund
1,600
14,850
C2.1.0 C2.2.0 C2.2.13 C2.2 14. C2.3.0 C2.4.0
Part 2
2 (a) 2 (b) 2 (b) 2 (b) 2 (c), 2(d)
Component 2: Outreach and Institutional Strengthening
School Visits, National Science Week and Public Awareness
Institutional Strengthening of UNCST Technical Committee
Monitoring and Evaluation/Policy Studies Institutional
Strengthening of UIRI and Rehabilitation Operational costs
1,700
C2.5.0
5
Unallocated
3,500
Subtotal 2. Outreach and Institutional Strengthening
Total Project Costs
18,500
33,350
IDA will finance 100% of most project investment costs. The
majority of project counterpart contributions will be in-kind.
Incremental recurrent costs would be primarily borne by the
Government through additional staff needed at the UNCST and in
conjunction with the overall strengthening of UNCST, and
through costs of additional staff at public universities hired
in conjunction with expanded research, graduate training, and
undergraduate science and engineering grants provided under
Windows A & B of Component One of the project.
Estimated operating costs amount to about 4.5% of overall
project costs. It has been determined that the financing of
these would be shared by the Government and IDA, with the
Government providing approximately 35% and IDA 65%. These
amounts and cost sharing arrangements will not pose a threat
to project sustainability. The IDA credit will not pay
salaries or any related salary expenses for civil servants.
The IDA credit will pay up to 100% for the costs of goods and
equipment, minor works, consultant services, and training.
2.2.2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation, Policy Studies and Remedial
Training Pilots
Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation activities will
establish whether and to what extent the MSI Program
accomplishes the Project Development Objective as stated in
section 1.4 above. It is thus necessary to measure whether
more and better qualified science and engineering students are
educated through the MSI, whether higher quality and more
relevant research is carried out, and whether firms utilize
science and engineering graduates as well as research results
to improve productivity. Due to the paucity of statistical
data on Uganda’s S&T sector, the Monitoring and Evaluation
subcomponent of the MSI will address the wider issue of
establishing a better basis for information gathering and data
assessment on the sector more generally. In particular, a
broad set of baseline data will be collected to provide the
appropriate perspective for the MSI efforts. Enriching the
statistical data, a series of more in-depth studies will also
be commissioned that will provide universities and other
institutes of higher education, research organizations,
industry, and Government agencies with relevant policy
information and statistical resources to deepen national
understanding of Uganda’s S&T system. A series of specific
policy studies, including pilots to test possible
technological solutions and measures, will constitute part of
the support entailed in this subcomponent as well.
Five indicators, for each of which targets are formulated,
will be used to measure accomplishment of the Project
Development Objectives. By the close of the project, the
following achievements will be measurable. The first concerns
the size or number of researchers and research groups in the
country and their productivity, which should double by the end
of the MSI Project. In key disciplines 50 % more science,
technology, and engineering undergraduates and graduate
students will be in the pipeline. The firms that take part in
the Technology Platforms should employ more S&T talent and use
more technology. To demonstrate the effect of the
strengthening of UNCST and UIRI, client surveys will
demonstrate satisfaction with the services these organizations
offer. Similarly, surveys among students and, to some extent,
the population in general demonstrate more positive attitudes
towards careers in science and technology.
The quantitative data on the evolution and the performance of
the various components of the MSI Financing Facility will be
collected both in separate surveys and as part of the regular
annual reporting of the participating teams, universities,
institutes, and firms. In addition, twice during the duration
of the MSI project an international panel of 3-5 distinguished
scientists will conduct highly qualitative reviews, including
site visits, of the Research Teams and the undergraduate
programs in science and engineering. They will provide
substantive inputs in the deliberations of the Technical
Committee.
The second subcomponent concerns policy studies and pilot
projects for remedial training. As data become available, more
in-depth policy studies become feasible. Performing these will
constitute a core element of the Monitoring and Evaluation
Plan.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
