Tracking customer progress: A follow-up study of customers of the Georgia Manufacturing Extension Alliance
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.
KeywordsGeorgia Institute Program Participation Capital Expenditure Sales Increase Project Completion
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Berglund, D., and C. Coburn.Partnerships: A Compendium of State and Federal Cooperative Technology Programs. Columbus, OH: Batelle Press, 1995.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Converse, J., and S. Presser.Survey Questions: Handcrafting the Standardized Questionnaire. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1990.Google Scholar
- Gore, A.Creating a Government that Works Better and Costs Less: A Report of the National Performance Review. New York: Plume, 1993.Google Scholar
- National Institute of Standards and Technology.Setting Priorities and Measuring Results. Gaithersburg, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1994.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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