IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v20y2011i4p275-282.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using fishbone analysis to improve the quality of proposals for science and technology programs

Author

Listed:
  • Shan-Shan Li
  • Ling-Chu Lee

Abstract

The paper discusses the use of ‘fishbone diagrams’ to help S&T program managers improve the quality of program proposals. By using this tool, they can make good connections between problems, goals, objectives, and measurable indicators. In order effectively to apply fishbone diagrams in S&T program proposals, this paper proposes combining fishbone diagrams with the ‘mutually exclusive; collectively exhaustive principle’ and the concepts of problem tree and objective tree from the logical framework approach. To demonstrate the process, an example is presented of a Taiwanese Government S&T program. We hope to show that fishbone analysis is a necessary tool for program planning if it is to produce significant outputs, outcomes, and impacts in the future. This paper should serve as a reference for S&T program managers and staff when developing program proposals. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Shan-Shan Li & Ling-Chu Lee, 2011. "Using fishbone analysis to improve the quality of proposals for science and technology programs," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(4), pages 275-282, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:20:y:2011:i:4:p:275-282
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/095820211X13176484436050
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:20:y:2011:i:4:p:275-282. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.