Advertisement

The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 43–52 | Cite as

Tracking customer progress: A follow-up study of customers of the Georgia Manufacturing Extension Alliance

  • Jan Youtie
  • Philip Shapira
Symposium Metrics and Methods for Performance Measurement and Evaluation of Public Research, Technology and Development Programs

Abstract

Time lags often exist before the economic impacts of technology promotion programs fully materialize. For one manufacturing technology deployment program, the Georgia Manufacturing Extension Alliance, this study gathered expected impact data soon after the point of service. Customers were then surveyed one year later and asked about impacts actually realized. A comparison showed that for the average project, actual benefits reported at the one-year survey mark were generally lower than benefits expected immediately after project completion, while actual costs were generally higher than expected costs. For high performing projects, however, the study found that actual benefits after one year were substantially higher than the benefits initially expected soon after assistance was completed. This study explores the implications of these findings for technology program evaluation and methods of performance measurement.

Keywords

Georgia Institute Program Participation Capital Expenditure Sales Increase Project Completion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Berglund, D., and C. Coburn.Partnerships: A Compendium of State and Federal Cooperative Technology Programs. Columbus, OH: Batelle Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  2. Bozeman, B., J. Youtie, and P. Shapira.A Design for the Evaluation of the Impact of the Georgia Research Alliance. Atlanta, GA: School of Public Policy and Economic Development Institute, Georgia Institute of Technology, 1997.Google Scholar
  3. Carlisle, R. “The Influence of Evaluation on Technology Policy-making and Program Justification: A State-Level Perspective.” InManufacturing Modernizations: Learning from Evaluation Practices and Results, edited by P. Shapira and J. Youtie. Atlanta, GA: School of Public Policy and Economic Development Institute, Georgia Institute of Technology, 1997, pp. 119–126.Google Scholar
  4. Converse, J., and S. Presser.Survey Questions: Handcrafting the Standardized Questionnaire. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1990.Google Scholar
  5. Gore, A.Creating a Government that Works Better and Costs Less: A Report of the National Performance Review. New York: Plume, 1993.Google Scholar
  6. National Institute of Standards and Technology.Setting Priorities and Measuring Results. Gaithersburg, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1994.Google Scholar
  7. National Institute of Standards and Technology.NIST MEP Reporting Guidelines, Version 2.1, Gaithersburg, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1996. Electronic copy available by ≪http://ww.mep.nist.gov/centers/programs/evaluation/guidelines/index.html≫.Google Scholar
  8. Pressman L. “Economic Impact of Technology Licensing: Measuring Induced Investment.” Presentation at WorkshopTechnology Transfer: How Do We Know What Works? Santa Fe, NM, April 28–May 2, 1996.Google Scholar
  9. Shapira, P., and J. Youtie,Georgia Manufacturing Extension Alliance: Overview of the Evaluation Plan. GMEA Evaluation Working Paper 9401. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Public Policy and Economic Development Institute, 1994. Electronic copy available through ≪http://www.cherry.gatech.edu/mod≫.Google Scholar
  10. Shapira, P., J. Youtie, and J. D. Roessner. “Current Practices in the Evaluation of Industrial Extension Programs.”Research Policy 25, 1996, pp. 185–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Shapira, P., and J. Youtie.Assessing GMEA's Economic Impacts: Towards a Benefit-Cost Methodology. GMEA Evaluation Working Paper. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Public Policy and Economic Development Institute, 1995.Google Scholar
  12. Smith, T., 1981. “Qualifications to generalized absolutes: ‘approval of hitting’ questions on the GSS.”Public Opinion Quarterly 45, 1981, pp. 224–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Technology Transfer Society 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Youtie
    • 1
  • Philip Shapira
    • 2
  1. 1.Economic Development InstituteGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlanta
  2. 2.School of Public PolicyGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlanta

Personalised recommendations