Business
Present value a
Future value
assessment tool, there was a need to investigate various sub-sets of partnerships or different scoring categories from a number of perspectives. To facilitate data aggregation and analysis, a Microsoft Excel VBA tool was developed to import and analyse the criterion scores and comments that formed the output of key stakeholder interviews. This simple application also provided a convenient route to deliver a suite of graphical outputs that can easily be transferred to other Office applica- tions for presentation and reporting.
Example: Evaluation of Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs)
PPP is not delivering value in two categories
b
PPP has the potential to deliver significantly more value
Once the evaluation tool had been built using cri- teria appropriate for PPPs, and data gathered via interviews, the final step of analysis and interpreta- tion could take place. Visualising the data in a number of formats, some of which are shown in the next few sections, enabled conclusions to be drawn, at differing levels of detail, either individu- ally or as a portfolio.
An example analysis of individual partnerships is shown in Figure 2, focusing on three partnerships at different stages of their lifecycle, and with markedly different future prospects.
PPP is only delivering minimal value c
PPP will not deliver improved value in any category
Partnership A Partnership A (Figure 2a) is a PPP that was initiat- ed recently. It is clear that the partnership is already rating well in the Strategic Interests and Delivery on Objectives categories. However, scores in the other two categories (Impact on R&D Productivity and Access to Capability and Talent) are less impressive. It was previously suggested that the Strategic Interests and Delivery on Objectives categories often score higher earlier in the PPP lifecycle than the Impact on R&D Productivity and Access to Capability and Talent categories, and the results for Partnership A are in line with this. The future value plot suggests that all four categories will eventually score highly, and Partnership A exem- plifies the need to consider the future value in addition to the present value of PPPs throughout the assessment.
PPP is delivering adequate value in all categories
PPP will continue to deliver adequate value in all categories
Figure 2: The present and future value of three PPPs in the portfolio: The scores for each category are marked in dark blue on radar plots. The pink marks represent the maximum possible score for each category. (a) A new PPP (Partnership A) that is considered to deliver increased value in the future; (b) An established PPP (Partnership B) that is only delivering minimal value; (c) An established PPP (Partnership C) that is delivering significant value
12
It is important to note with Partnership A that it was recognised that full value would probably not be delivered within two years. However, it was felt that estimating the value beyond two years into the future would be so compromised by uncertainty as to be of little value.
Partnership B The example in (Figure 2b) (Partnership B) is of a PPP started before Partnership A; it is delivering
Drug Discovery World Winter 2010/11
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80