Applications - Assessment
of Innovation Fund Proposals
Assessment Process
Each proposal submitted to the Department for funding
from the Innovation Fund, is subjected to three levels of evaluation
before a final shortlist can be compiled.
Each proposal is evaluated by at least two technical
evaluators. They are required to evaluate proposals according
to the set criteria spelled out in the Evaluation
Framework by marking the set of weighted scores, and to compile a
report of not more than two pages about the proposal. They sign
non-disclosure agreements with the Department in an attempt to protect
confidential information contained in each proposal.
The third level of evaluation makes provision for a
Selection Panel consisting of relevant Government Departments, who provide
a strategic view on each proposal.
Evaluators
The evaluators on the evaluation panel of the Department
are selected from the best in the country and from the most renowned
persons in a particular field of expertise. They are appointed by the
Minister and remunerated by the Department to perform the evaluation task
for the Department.
It is true that we ask for names of referees in the
proposals, but do not use them on a regular basis for evaluation of
proposal. Referees indicated in proposals by applicants are only used in
the case where the Department has no suitable evaluator on it's Panel for
a particular proposal in a particular field of expertise. Would-be
Referees that will be staying or living abroad for the envisaged duration
of a proposed project, could also not be considered for evaluation, as
they will be needed locally should the proposal be accepted for funding.
The high cost of bringing to South Africa such an evaluator on a frequent
base, is not on.
Evaluation Framework
The criteria used in evaluating a proposal are described
under General Guidelines,
and the Evaluation
Framework form is outlined below.
Top
of page
(Used by Technical Evaluators to evaluate
proposals submitted to the Innovation Fund)
INNOVATION FUND PROJECT NUMBER:
………………
CONSORTIUM (Applicant) / ORGANISATION: ......
PROJECT TITLE:
.......................................
Evaluation summary (should not exceed two typed
pages) and total rating of project against merit criteria.
- Comments and a rating should be supplied for each
of the areas listed (see assessment guidelines).
- Brief summary of conditions which evaluator thinks
should be stipulated if the application is successful.
Total rating: …… / 60
Evaluator (title, initials and surname): .......
Contact details (telephone, fax and e-mail address):
.........
Signature: ....................
Date: ………………...
ASSESSMENT AND SCORING GUIDELINES
MERIT CRITERIA FOR PROJECT EVALUATION
| Consortium |
Rating |
Guideline: assessment in terms of
capacity and the following areas:
- Project personnel expertise and capability to
undertake R&D (CVs included in proposals);
- Available infrastructure to conduct project;
- Financial capacity to exploit the results;
- The applicant has a good understanding of
technical, product development, testing and production
start-up elements in commercialisation / implementation of
innovation.
|
Very high:
12
10
8
6
4
2
|
| Project |
Rating |
Guideline: Project should be
assisted in terms of the following:
- An appreciable measure of technological
innovation;
- Feasibility of research and development
methodology;
- Is costing reasonable? If not, why not (e.g.
overestimated or ineligible costs have been included).
Indicate whether the project will result in:
- The introduction to South Africa of new
technologies and value adding operations;
- Improvement in the efficiency, productivity
or competitiveness of South Africans in the production of
goods, or the delivery of services;
- Diffusion of technologies or value adding
operations to industry or development sectors orientated to
service delivery.
|
Very high:
12
10
8
6
4
2
|
| Management capability |
Rating |
| Guideline: Assessment in
terms of the following:
The applicant clearly has / will contract in:
- Project management expertise;
- Financial management capability;
- A core business which is directly relevant to
the commercialisation of the project;
- A realistic timeframe for implementation and
completion of all aspects of the project.
|
Very high:
6
5
4
3
2
1
|
| National Benefit |
Rating |
| Guideline: There must be some
indication of benefits extending beyond those accruing to a
particular organisation / business, such as:
National financial benefits:
- Increased employment;
- New capital investment;
- Exports;
- Import replacement, and / or
National social benefits.
|
Very high:
12
10
8
6
4
2
|
| Market need / Competitiveness |
Rating |
Guideline: The application
clearly demonstrates:
- A strong and realistic market potential for
the expected outcomes;
- A strong competitive advantage (IP position /
value addition);
- A thorough understanding of the competitive
situation that the new product / process will face;
- An understanding of the frequency with which
new products / services or major innovations are developed /
enter the market;
- An appropriate understanding of the route to
market – access to manufacturing and appropriate marketing
skills;
- A realistic estimate for the timeframe in
which the applicant can begin exploiting the results of the
project.
|
Very high:
6
5
4
3
2
1
|
| Benefit to disadvantaged
communities |
Rating |
- Benefit of project results to historically
disadvantaged communities.
|
Very high:
12
10
8
6
4
2
|
|
Additional Comments
- State suggested conditions if successful,
example: Consortium / organisation should be requested to fund
portion of project costs.
|
Top of
page
|