EQUIPP ANALYSIS OF TECHNOFUND
7.4 EQUIPP ANALYSIS OF TECHNOFUND
7.4.1 Theme One: Meaningful Participatory Policy Procedure
In order to set up appropriate participatory forums as prescribed by key action 1, there is the need to actively encourage marginalised groups or their representatives to participate in formulation processes and facilitate access to participatory forums. However, this grant is exclusive for the above mentioned applicants only. The applications are submitted through Research Management Centres (RMCs) for vetting and recommendations. This finding definitely does not support key action 2, i.e. to ensure the highest level of participation.
There is no indication of participatory policy procedure for marginalised populations. Based on the eligibility criteria, this fund is exclusive and there is no participatory forum. The project selection process is vaguely explained. Obviously, there is a sense of inclusiveness in terms of research themes and topics. However, the question to be raised is whether the marginalised groups research themes have managed to attain the grant or not. This requires analysis of the list of successful grants (approved and completed).
7.4.2 Theme 2: Cross-Sectoral and Intergovernmental Cooperation and Coordination
Key action 3 calls for a stronger cross-sectoral cooperation to encourage different sectors to work together to produce an integrated strategy. Eventually, individuals or groups with multiple needs will benefit substantially from integrated service responses. With the wide scope of research area and priority areas, there are possibilities that cross-sectoral and intergovernmental cooperation and coordination has occurred. Further interviews have identified that there are further engagements with different Research Management teams, stakeholders, beneficiaries and Project monitoring teams (PMTs) across different sectoral and intergovernmental agencies.
Whereas, key action 4 is to strengthen intergovernmental cooperation by encouraging different government levels to coordinate and cooperate, encouraging alignment of initiatives (two-way interaction) and actively seeking out information on “local realities.”
Institutional structures are in place. For example, the fund needs approval from a committee called Jawatankuasa Kelulusan Dana (JKD) and Jawatankuasa Pemantauan Khas to evaluate the applications. These committees ensure that the scope of projects are aligned with national policies.
7.4.3 Matching Social Need And Provision
Key action 5 to plan according to need will ensure that policies and decisions taken are better adapted to local conditions. Based on the objectives and the scope of research areas of the funds (enterprise and community innovation funds), the funds are created based on the needs of enterprise and community, hence matching social needs and provision.
There is a clear instruction about work plan and timelines. All proposals must have clear objectives, research background, socioeconomic objectives (SEO), fields of research (FOR), research approach, benefits of the project (output, human capital development, economic contribution & infrastructure contribution) is clearly indicated on pages 4-13 of application form.
In key action 6 where there is the need to specify actions by which social needs will be addressed, it is evident that the grant is directed towards commercialization of new or cutting edge technologies or to further develop/value add existing technologies/products in specific areas for the creation of new businesses and generation of economic wealth for Malaysia. This market driven R&D is to encourage institutions, local companies and inventors to capitalize their intellectual work through intellectual property (IP) registration; and to stimulate the growth and increase capability and capacity of Malaysian technology-based enterprises, Malaysian Government Research Institutes (GRI) and Institutions of Higher Learning (IHL) through both local and international collaborations, as clearly stated in the objectives.
7.4.4 Theme 4: Social Budgeting
The need for equity considerations into budgets as in key action 7 indicates that principles of distributional equity should guide this process. From the guidelines it is clear applications are open throughout the year but evaluation will be carried out quarterly. Other than this information it is hardly possible to assume a long-term commitment to funding.
We are not sure about the distribution of funds across the priority areas - whether they are equal or not. It is not mentioned in the document. However the distribution of incentives may be unequal owing to the fact the intellectual property incentives are more common for science than social sciences and humanities. Interview with MOSTI suggests that the budgets are based solely on needs and not uniformly distributed across disciplines.
It is also important to minimise gaps between real and planned budgets to ensure allocation of committed resources as clearly stated in key action 8. A clear control mechanism is in place with the appointment of Project Monitoring Team by MOSTI other than periodic reports from researchers.
7.4.5 Theme 5: Responsive and Flexible Implementation
Key action 9 addresses the need for the most inclusive selection methodology to supplement formalised selection processes with an alternative identification process.
The approval criteria are detailed and comprehensive. However, in this document the selection process and methodology from MOSTI is not known. Further interview suggests that Research Management Center (RMC) have consulted stakeholders from higher education sectors and MOSTI clusters to identify the selection methodology.
Key action 10 is to devise a responsive and flexible implementation plan whereby there is a need to demonstrate the potential for commercialisation of new/innovative technologies and/or new IPs derived from the project.
7.4.6 Theme 6: Partnerships and Inter-Agency Cooperation
Key action 11 is the requirement to select the most appropriate implementation partners and engage in partnerships with non-governmental, civil society and community organisations, as well as the private sector.
CSOs and community organisations are not mentioned in the collaborator classification. However, there is a prospect of engagement since the document defined the collaboration as a form of sharing of expertise and research facilities.
For key action 12 to actively encourage inter-agency cooperation, there should be a more concerted effort at promoting inter-agency cooperation to deliver a more comprehensive solution to predominant forms of exclusion.
It is clearly stated in the guidelines that collaboration, technology transfer and consultancy agreements between the recipients and collaborators must define among others, the scope of work and contribution of the collaborators. However, there is no indication from the requirements that applicants are encouraged to engage in inter-agency cooperation. According to MOSTI, they are area- specific, for example MOSTI-Ministry of Agriculture (MOSTI-MOA) inter-agency cooperation on process evaluation. The parameters of cooperation, however is not specifically identified.
7.4.7 Theme 7: Multi-Dimensional and Context Driven Performance Indicators
Appropriate indicator dimensions mentioned in key action 13 will involve or consult key stakeholders (including beneficiaries) in the selection of indicators.
From the approval criteria (item 8, of the guideline document), it seems that various dimensions are proposed in the approval dimension. We believe that these criteria will be used as performance indicators in disbursing the funds. There is also a project monitoring clause in the form.
However, the transparency in terms of disclosing which monitoring agency and bodies are not ensured. Projects are assessed individually without specific indicators being used for social inclusion. However, various performance indicators or facts and figures are published in MOSTI report.
7.4.8 Theme 8: Data Fit for Purpose
Key action 14 is the need to disaggregate data collection. We are unable to identify from the document if MOSTI has collected the data. MOSTI has clarified that
there are no specific database on social indicators. The only database available are the applicants’ particulars.
Key action 15 is to collect qualitative and quantitative data. It is necessary to supplement quantitative data with qualitative data. Besides, it is necessary to collect baseline information and to ensure that this data feeds into revision/adaptation processes.
There are data on the successful proposals and completed research. Based on the research areas, there are indications they have served the needs of priority populations. However, there is no evidence of qualitative data and only descriptive quantitative data is available.
7.4.9 Theme 9: Comprehensive and Inclusive Dissemination System
Key action 16 on information sharing with policy beneficiaries is to raise awareness among excluded and marginalised groups about policy benefits, disseminate this information through context appropriate mediums and deliver this information in a manner that is easily understood.
Interview with MOSTI officers suggests that information is well disseminated through conferences such as National Innovation Conference and Exhibition (NICE) which has been established since 2006. Recognition for research excellence is done through Anugerah Inovasi Negara (AIN) or National Innovation Award. These initiatives enable information to be transferred through various media.
Key action 17 on information sharing with the policy community is important in monitoring and evaluation with all relevant stakeholders and the academic community.
As there is no information on data collection (in the document / guideline), it is difficult to ascertain whether the information has been shared as well. However, based on research publications and output as well as documents on collaboration activities, we have reason to believe that efforts have been undertaken to share the information. Numerical data or specific database on monitoring is unavailable.