EQUIPP ANALYSIS OF INNOFUND The EIF is open to small and medium enterprises either with a minimum paid up capital of RM10 000
8.3 EQUIPP ANALYSIS OF INNOFUND The EIF is open to small and medium enterprises either with a minimum paid up capital of RM10 000
or start-ups with strong documented justifications of business sustainability. Both categories must meet the requirement of 51% equity held by Malaysian. CIF is subjected to a different requirement whereby applicants must be a registered or Government recognized Malaysian Community Group. Proposal for both funds must contain innovative elements leading to the development of products, services or processes leading to commercialisation or improvements in societal well-being. However, there groups that are being excluded for funding under EIF, especially projects under the purview of certain Ministry, Department or Agency (this however, is not applicable in CIF); Research Wing of Government Linked Companies; Research Institutes with internal research funding; large and well- established trading companies. They are not being categoris ed under “vulnerable groups” as the sole purpose of their exclusion is to create a competitive and fair conditions for other fund applicants.
8.3.1 Theme 1: Meaningful Participatory Policy Procedure
There are two key actions in Theme 1 which are a setup of appropriate participatory form (key action
1) and ensure the highest level of participation (key action 2). MOSTI has encouraged and engaged with various stakeholders especially research institutes, government agencies institutes of higher learning and private sectors to setup Research Management Centre. In terms of fund application procedure, there is a brief explanation about project evaluation consists of the Institutional Screening Committee, the Technical and Financial Evaluation Committee and the Fund Approval Committee at MOSTI. However, upon interviewing members of the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI) Malaysia, forums and focus groups were found to have been created to obtain on-going feedbacks and updating of the policies imposed in the funds. However, due to its internal nature of the process, the details of the forums were not disclosed. We take their comments with grain of salt and believe that there must have some form of participatory forums conducted for such an important fund. MOSTI has encouraged and engaged with various stakeholders especially research institutes, government agencies institutes of higher learning and private sectors to setup Research Management Centre. In terms of fund application procedure, there is a brief explanation about project evaluation consists of the Institutional Screening Committee, the Technical and Financial Evaluation Committee and the Fund Approval Committee at MOSTI. Also, there is yet a systematic documentation of project selection process recorded officially for public access.
In terms of key action 2, to ensure the highest level of participation, like many other funds, like other funds, MOSTI has conducted various talks, workshop and exhibition to promote this fund. The eligibility of applicants is diverse ranging from individuals to community groups. The definition of participating industries and the size of enterprise encompass a wide range of level. However, there are also exclusiveness when 3.3 (in the fund document) is taken into consideration; whereby priority will be given to applicants with projects that have been support by the Science Fund and companies that have obtained the InnoCert recognition. Hence this may exclude the chances of individuals or smaller first applicants. Therefore, the application is conditional in nature. Also similar with other funds, there is no clear evidence whether the marginalised groups research themes managed to attain the grant or not. There is a need to analyse the list of successful grant (be it approved or completed).
8.3.2 Theme 2: Cross-sectoral and Intergovernmental Cooperation and Coordination
There are two key actions which are to strengthen cross-sectoral cooperation (key action 3) and the strengthening of intergovernmental cooperation (key action 4). This grant allows cross-sectoral cooperation. It also allows grant transfer between organisations. This grant encourages different sectors to work together to produce integrated strategy and result on a specific priority area. We believe that given the wide scope of research area and priority areas, there are possibilities that cross- sectoral and intergovernmental cooperation and coordination has occurred. Our interview has identified that there are further engagements with different Research Management teams, stakeholders, beneficiaries and Project monitoring teams (PMTs) across different sectoral and intergovernmental agencies. Also, moderate action may be present as there are continuous engagement with Research Management Centers (RMCs), other stakeholders, beneficiaries and evaluation committee. Evidence of clear interests in collaboration in a wide scope of applicants, but they are incomplete or partial in terms of official documentation of engagements in both key actions. As for the strengthening of intergovernmental cooperation, sufficient institutional process and structures are in place. For example, the fund needs approval from a committee called Jawatankuasa Kelulusan Dana (JKD) and Jawatankuasa Pemantauan Khas (JPK) to evaluate the applications. These committees ensure that the scope of projects are aligned with national policies.
8.3.3 Theme 3: Matching Social Needs and Provision.
There are two key actions which are key action 5 - planning in according to need and key action 6 – addressing specific actions by with social needs. 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 enterprises and community, hence matching social needs and its provision. There is a clear instruction on 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 particularly on the output/product, human capital development, economic contribution and infrastructure contribution. It directly addresses the ‘local condition’ of a particular situation/group. There are five explicit socioeconomic objectives of this grant which are defence, economic development, society, environment and advancement of knowledge. There is an outline of transformative pathways in terms of output of a research project.
While key action 5 explains the existence of the policy, we could not find provisions in the document regarding specific actions and interventions taken to “level the playing field”. However, according to interview with MOSTI, Yayasan Inovasi Malaysia (YIM) – the Malaysian Foundation for Innovation have been established to undertake the 6th High Impact Programme under the country’s SME masterplan, which is inclusive innovation. According to YIM, the programme is “specifically designed to motivate, identify, screen, adopt, upgrade, develop and sustainably deliver inclusive innovations to tackle disparities among the Malaysian population in terms of income and access to basic needs” (http://www.gsmenewsnetwork.com/top-business-stories/itemlist/tag/HIP%206). There are also anecdotal evidences on the success of YIM and inclusive innovations
8.3.4 Theme 4: Social Budgeting
There are two (2) key actions for this theme. For key action 7 - build equity considerations into budgets, we are unsure about the distribution of funds across the priority areas in regards to the equality in distribution. 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 distributed uniformly across disciplines. There are evidences of recognition - sustainability and long-term commitment to funding but no associated actions or official documentation on the on the guiding principles in the distribution There are two (2) key actions for this theme. For key action 7 - build equity considerations into budgets, we are unsure about the distribution of funds across the priority areas in regards to the equality in distribution. 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 distributed uniformly across disciplines. There are evidences of recognition - sustainability and long-term commitment to funding but no associated actions or official documentation on the on the guiding principles in the distribution
For key action 8 - minimising of gaps between real and planned budgets, the grant has a comprehensive the budget monitoring mechanism. This key action is open to different interpretations. If we are evaluating MOSTI, the document is not able to explain how the gaps between budgets are being minimised. However, if the focus is identifying a monitoring system between MOSTI and the recipients, then the monitoring system can be said to be comprehensive. For example, if MOSTI decide to allocate MYR10 million for social sciences, but only able disburse MYR5 million, there is the gap of concern. However, if the measurement parameter is between MOSTI and the recipient, then the policies of monitoring are in place. Interview with MOSTI suggests that there is also flexibility in filling the gaps based on the needs of MOSTI Social Innovation programme.
8.3.5 Theme 5: Responsive and Flexible
In Theme 5, key action 9 examines whether the grant application process adopts the most inclusive selection methodology. The approval criteria are detailed and comprehensive but the selection process and methodology of used by MOSTI in its selection is unknown in this document. Further interview however suggests that Research Management Center (RMC) have consulted stakeholders from higher education sectors and MOSTI clusters to identify the selection methodology. Key action
10 on the other hand investigates whether a responsive and flexible implementation plan is in place. The interaction between stakeholders and applicants e.g queries on their applications can be done swiftly and obtained through various channels and avenues such as official websites and hotlines. However, the response rate or adequacy in reply from MOSTI is unknown. Hence only minor action – evidence of token or minimal efforts to engage is considered to have been taken.
8.3.6 Theme 6: Partnerships and Inter-agency Cooperation
Key action 11 analyses the most appropriate implementation partners while key action 12 query whether inter-agency cooperation has been encouraged. The criteria focus is also on the engagement in partnerships with non-governmental, civil society and community organizations, as well as the private sector. The grant encourages partnership and inter-agency cooperation between/within NGOs and community group hence achieving the latter criteria. However, the extent of the partnership beyond funder and recipient is unknown. One can only conjecture that spill overs of relationships have occurred during the implementation stage. Interview with MOSTI confirmed our conjecture. NGO participation and committee groups are involved in the implementation process. It is also not clearly stated on the method of selection and encouragement of inter-agency cooperation. There are also no explicit indications from the document in enforcing inter-agency cooperation. According to MOSTI, they are area-specific such as MOSTI-Ministry of Agriculture (MOSTI-MOA) inter-agency cooperation on the evaluation process. The parameters of cooperation however are not specifically identified.
8.3.7 Theme 7: Multi-dimensional and Context Driven Performance Indicators
Key action 13 sets to identify appropriate indicator dimensions. This area of focus evaluates the performance of the fund/policy through a set of indicators and also through feedbacks from selected stakeholders. From the approval criteria (item 8, of the guideline document), it seems that various dimensions are proposed in the approval process. We believe that these criteria will be used as performance indicators in disbursing the funds. There is also a project monitoring clause in the application form, implying the performance of the grants will be monitored. However, the transparency in terms of disclosing which monitoring agencies and bodies are not ensured. Projects are also assessed individually without a set of harmonised and standardized indicators of social inclusion. Nevertheless, various performance indicators or facts and figures are published in MOSTI report. While the spirit of performance evaluation is in place, actual documentation and recording of Key action 13 sets to identify appropriate indicator dimensions. This area of focus evaluates the performance of the fund/policy through a set of indicators and also through feedbacks from selected stakeholders. From the approval criteria (item 8, of the guideline document), it seems that various dimensions are proposed in the approval process. We believe that these criteria will be used as performance indicators in disbursing the funds. There is also a project monitoring clause in the application form, implying the performance of the grants will be monitored. However, the transparency in terms of disclosing which monitoring agencies and bodies are not ensured. Projects are also assessed individually without a set of harmonised and standardized indicators of social inclusion. Nevertheless, various performance indicators or facts and figures are published in MOSTI report. While the spirit of performance evaluation is in place, actual documentation and recording of
8.3.8 Theme 8: Data Fit for Purpose
There are two key actions which are disaggregating data collection (key action 14) and collect qualitative and quantitative data (key action 15). In fact there are problems to identify evidence of qualitative and quantitative data. The descriptive quantitative data is available online. While the MASTIC Science and Innovation Indicators Report provides detailed information on the achievements and educational trends in the field of S&T, human resource for S&T, public awareness on S&T, R&D activities, innovation, trading of technology, balance of payments of technology, patents, bibliometric and biotechnology information and communication technology (ICT), we cannot ascertain that these data are compiled from either the EIF or the CIF. This means that there are minimal efforts in stock- taking and official compiling of data and documentation.
8.3.9 Theme 9: Comprehensive and Inclusive Dissemination System
Two key actions here include the sharing of information with policy beneficiaries (key action 16) and the sharing of information with the policy community (key action 17). Interview with MOSTI 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. Through these initiatives, information is transferred through the various media. While information are present, they are (again) not formally documented in official reports. There are also minor actions taken in sharing collected data in monitoring and evaluation of grants with all relevant stakeholders and the academic community. There is no information on data collection (in the document / guideline), hence it is difficult to ascertain whether the information has been shared as well. However, based on research publications and output, document 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.