Page 51 - PROGRAM PERFORMANCE PROFILE (PPP)

time frames. They are usually broken down into projects that consist of interrelated studies also designed to meet
predetermined objectives within a specific time frame. The major steps include:
• Identification of strong research leaders
The development of research programs in the University starts with the identification of
research leaders with the necessary competencies in terms of knowledge, skills, values and
attitudes.
• Creation of an Ad Hoc Committee
This will be followed by creating an Ad Hoc Committee preferably of five members from the
various disciplines who shall craft the common research framework.
• Appointment of experts to review and package proposal
Experts from the University Expert Pool shall then be sought to review the research program
proposal after which the research program proposal shall be packaged first-class by providing all the
needed information for donor support.
• Invitation of prospective fund donors
Prospective donors shall then be invited for a visit and briefing about the program.
The same process shall also be sought for sponsor-driven program proposals.

✓ Criteria in Evaluating R&D Proposals
Following are some considerations under each criterion to evaluate the Projects proposals:

1) Tangible Impact on Improving Quality of Academic Programs. The extent to which the proposal is expected
to bring direct benefits to the policy formulation aimed at improving quality of academic program;
2) Multidisciplinary Approach. The involvement of proponents coming from different disciplines is given preference
in the evaluation of proposals; The partnership of senior and Junior researchers (mentor-mentee relationships) is also
desirable.
3) Clarity and Manageability. The proposal should be clear, concise and implementable within the period as
proposed. Among the desirable characters should be:
• Key activities of the project and time for each are clearly outlined in the proposal.
• Attainable outcome results (long term) and output results (short term or immediate)
• Realistic performance measurement indicators
• Small scale and short project cycle (able to demonstrate results within shorter period)
4) Sustainability, Replication and Up-scaling. The extent to which the expected results of the proposal have the
potentials to be replicated or up-scaled in larger scale, in another geographic region or in other context.
5) Realistic and Relevant Budget. Among these should include:
• The extent to which the proposed budget is realistic.
• The extent to which the proposed budget items are relevant.

Evaluation of the Proposals
Projects ideally should cover one-year implementation period. All proposals will be reviewed by a campus
committee designated. Consolidated proposals by campus will be endorsed and submitted to the University level for
final review and approval by a committee to be designated by the VP-RDET. Evaluation team in the campus and
university level can make use of the set of evaluation criteria as mentioned above.