How do you measure success?

For individuals working within a NIDRR-funded grant activity, the answer to the question, "How do you measure success?" initially may be–"To be successful in obtaining grant funding." As the quantity and quality of competition grows annually, surely being successful in this sort of competition process at the national level is an indicator of quality in targeting needed research but also carefully considered methods of conducting that research.

Given success in the grant competition process, how else do you measure success in your NIDRR grant activity? Some may indicate this type of success in terms of timeliness in initiating and conducting planned work, some would measure success in terms of spending at levels slightly less than those in an original proposal, yet others would measure success in terms of implementation–simply "doing what I said I would do."

These "measures" of success are often taken as "givens" in the responsible implementation of publicly-funded research activities. It is important to recognize that a growing number of disability stakeholders are asserting that true "success" can only be measured in terms of the impact produced by your grant-funded work.

Impact, of course, is highly variable from project to project. Generally, however, impact can be categorized by: usefulness in guiding overall judgments, facilitating improvements, and generating new knowledge. This issue of The Research Exchange suggests some data that may be useful in your further consideration of NIDRR grantee "success."

This issue adds to the data previously reported by the NCDDR concerning the types of products being reported by NIDRR grantees. Information from NARIC's 1995 and 1996 Compendium of Products of NIDRR Grantees and Contractors is added to data reported by grantees for Fiscal Years 1993 and 1994. Dissemination trends of grantees appear to be clearer in this iteration of data reporting. One trend across these fiscal years demonstrates that approximately one-third of all grantees report a product in any single year.

This issue also highlights results of an NCDDR staff analysis of NIDRR grantees' Web sites. Approximately 175 NIDRR grantees currently report a Web site as part of their grant-related dissemination strategy. NCDDR staff have reviewed each grantee's Web site in order to develop a profile of common characteristics, including an objective assessment of the overall level of accessibility provided by each site for people with disabilities. The results of this analysis highlight areas that NIDRR grantees may wish to evaluate and consider the need for improvements.

As we all strive for success, it is useful to note that success comes as much from an attitude as it does from a set of tried-and-true actions. A philosophy of continuous improvement assists grantees in aspiring to continued success. Hopefully, analyses conducted and reported by the NCDDR may be helpful in thinking about new areas of potential improvement of current dissemination practices.

John D. Westbrook, Ph.D.
Director, NCDDR

Top