Relevance |
Recommendation 1: The CERC program should be continued for an additional five years. The current context reinforces the need to continue supporting the program to help ensure Canada remains competitive at the global level. |
Agree.
The Steering Committee is pleased to note that the Evaluation of the Canada Excellence Research Chairs Program found that there is a continued need for the program to help ensure that Canada remains competitive at the global level in an increasingly competitive context. It is also satisfied that the program has made good progress towards achieving all its expected immediate outcomes at this early stage and that it is managed efficiently and cost effectively.
The committee is happy to note that the report documents that several measures have already been put in place to improve the program delivery in the second competition, and that these received a high level of satisfaction from clients.
The committee agrees that there remain improvements to be made with regards to greater clarification of expected program outcomes and further refinement of some design and delivery features. Its responses to specific recommendations are outlined below. It is important to note that all changes will need to be implemented within the levels of resources that are currently available for the operations of the program.
|
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
Performance and effectiveness |
Recommendation 2: Review and clarify expectations regarding the CERC program outcomes. Clearer definitions and expectations regarding branding, sustainability, as well as collaborations, partnerships, and relationships with users of research (non-academic sectors) need to be developed. |
Agree.
The Steering Committee supports this recommendation.
Program management will clarify definitions and expectations related to branding, sustainability, as well as collaborations, partnerships, and relationships with users of research in relevant program literature and it will expand data capture in these areas.
The CERC program logic model and performance management strategy will be revised on the basis of these definitions, including expected outcomes with indicators to measure progress. The CERC Communications Plan and Guidelines for Communications Activities will also be revised to reflect clarified objectives.
|
Responsible for implementation:
Executive Director, Chairs Secretariat
In consultation with:
SSHRC Communications Division
CIHR, NSERC and SSHRC Performance units
|
Priority
2.1 High
2.2 Medium
2.3 Medium
2.4 Medium
|
2.1 Revised program literature
May 2015
2.2 Revised logic model
January 2015
2.3 Revised guidelines for communications
May 2015
2.4 New Communications Plan
Prior to the next competition (date to be determined)
|
Performance and effectiveness |
Recommendation 3: Improve reporting procedures, mechanisms and tools (e.g., annual reports, mid-term review) to ensure that the Chairs Secretariat has more comprehensive information to monitor the program and to better capture evidence of program outcomes over the long-term. |
Agree.
The Steering Committee supports this recommendation.
Program management will revise the outcomes reporting structure, taking into account the evaluation’s findings.
|
Responsible for implementation:
Executive Director, Chairs Secretariat
In consultation with:
CIHR, NSERC and SSHRC Performance units
|
Priority
3.1 High
3.2 High
3.3 High
3.4 Medium
|
3.1 Review reporting tools
May 2015
3.2 Develop mid-term review process
February 2016
3.3 Revised performance indicators matrix
May 2015
3.4 Revised performance management strategy (PMS)
Prior to the next competition (date to be determined)
|
Performance and effectiveness |
Recommendation 4: Identify, monitor and promote best practices for the sustainability of the research capacity developed as a result of the CERC awards (i.e., critical mass of researchers and HQP, infrastructure). |
Agree.
The Steering Committee supports this recommendation.
Program management will expand data gathering to better monitor sustainability as outlined under recommendation #3. It will also require institutions to submit a sustainability plan and examine ways to facilitate post-award transition.
|
Responsible for implementation:
Executive Director, Chairs Secretariat
In consultation with:
Corporate Strategy and Performance Division
|
Priority
4.1 High
4.2 High
|
4.1 Develop requirements for sustainability plans
Prior to the next competition (date to be determined)
4.2 Examine ways to facilitate post-award transition
Ongoing up to the launch of the next competition
|