Productive Development Partnerships: a strategic monitoring proposal

Silva, Gabriela de Oliveira; Elias, Flávia Tavares Silva

doi:10.1590/0103-11042019S216

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

CASE STUDY • Saúde debate 43 (spe2) • Nov 2019 • https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-11042019S216 copy

Productive Development Partnerships: a strategic monitoring proposal

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

It is an experience report on the methodological construction of a strategic monitoring proposal from the Productive Development Partnerships (PDP), which comprises all of the process of establishing partnerships phases and provides elements for structuring a program of evaluating the initiative in order to verify the performance of the partnerships and their impact, bringing together the economic and social aspects. Such proposal integrates methodological procedures with different metrics and information sources (documentary analysis, logic models, inquiry with the actors involved in PDP and multiple case studies) with qualitative and quantitative approaches from a perspective of collective construction. The presented experience, yet to be validated by Unified Health System’s (SUS) governance, aims to offer a business oriented infrastructure intelligence that allows the conversion of data and information into useful knowledge for action, contributing to the success of the initiative, and, thus, to the strengthening of the Economic Industrial Health Complex and the increase of public production of medicines for the SUS.

KEYWORDS
Public-private sector partnerships; Technology transfer; Program evaluation

Nº	Question	Dimension
1	Our PDP and new proposals are aligned with the needs of the Unified Health System.	Strategy
2	There are specific projects for the PDP with defined managers, as well as their responsibilities.	Structure
3	We provide time, staff, financial and non-financial resources for the implementation and monitoring of the PDP.	Culture
4	The objectives and importance of the PDP are understood and recognized by everyone within the organization.	People
5	We have a suitable structure for the execution of the PDP, with appropriate tools for project management and monitoring.	Estrutura
6	Our organization presents a clear focus for the type of technologies (to be) developed or technological platforms and has clear criteria for choosing the products to be the object of PDP and partners.	Strategy
7	Our organization understands that the PDP involve technological risk projects and manage them in the search for new solutions.	Culture
8	The actions and activities of the PDP are outlined and have a defined coordination.	Estrutura
9	The leaders of the organization have clarity about the concept and importance of PDP.	Leadership
10	We have sources of resources for investments in PDP projects, either through the partnership itself or through other projects.	Funding
11	We use project management tools to conduct the PDP.	Process
12	PDP products and outcomes are assessed according to performance measures that take into account existing risks and uncertainties.	Funding
13	The performance of the areas involved with the PDP is evaluated with specific metrics related to their performance in the PDP management process.	Leadership
14	The knowledge and tools required for the entire process of technology transfer within the PDP are known to everyone involved within the organization.	People
15	We use our networks of researchers, suppliers, customers and companies in the productive sector to generate and refine new ideas, improve PDP and facilitate the process of technology internalization.	Relationship
16	Leaderships devote time and attention to monitoring PDP projects.	Leadership
17	There are themes, objectives and targets defined for PDP projects.	Strategy
18	We systematically assess the results of the PDP initiatives.	Process
19	We are deeply aware of the needs of our customers, society and the Unified Health System.	Relationship
20	We have a structured process for managing technology transfers and monitoring PDP.	Process
21	We have a systematic process for monitoring new market and technological trends.	Relationship
22	We use communication mechanisms to promote PDP within and outside the organization.	Culture
23	Our team presents high diversity of knowledge and training in technology transfer projects.	People
24	We seek financial resources for PDP and innovation in different sources, such as notices, government bodies and partners.	Funding

Nº	Question	Dimension
1	The products defined as strategic are aligned with the needs of the Unified Health System and technological trends.	Strategy
2	There are specific administrative processes for the PDP with defined technicians, as well as their responsibilities.	Structure
3	We provide time, staff, financial and non-financial resources for the evaluation and monitoring of the PDP.	Culture
4	The objectives and importance of the PDP are understood and recognized by all within the institution.	People
5	We have a suitable structure for the management, monitoring and evaluation of the PDP, with appropriate instruments for this.	Structure
6	There are clear criteria for defining the technologies or technological platforms to be subject of PDP and for the selection of proposals.	Strategy
7	Our institution understands that PDP involves technological risk projects and guides producers to search for new solutions.	Culture
8	The actions and activities for the evaluation and monitoring of the PDP are delineated and have a defined coordination.	Structure
9	The leaders of the institution have clarity about the concept and importance of PDP.	Leadership
10	We have sources of resources for acquiring PDP products and/or for carrying out monitoring and evaluation activities.	Funding
11	We use project management tools to monitor and evaluate PDP.	Process
12	PDP products and outcomes are assessed according to performance measures that take into account existing risks and uncertainties.	Funding
13	The performance of the sectors involved with the PDP is evaluated with specific metrics related to their performance in the process of monitoring and evaluation of the PDP.	Leadership
14	All those involved within the institution have mastery over the knowledge and tools necessary for the process of monitoring and evaluation of the PDP.	People
15	We use our networks of researchers, suppliers, public producers and companies in the productive sector to generate and refine new ideas, improve the PDP initiative and facilitate the process of internalization of technology by public producers.	Relationship
16	Leaders devote time and attention to monitoring PDP projects.	Leadership
17	There are themes, objectives and targets defined for PDP projects.	Strategy
18	We systematically assess the results of the PDP initiatives.	Process
19	We know deeply the needs of the productive sector, society and the Unified Health System.	Relationship
20	We have a structured process for monitoring and evaluating PDP.	Process
21	We have a systematic process for monitoring new market and technological trends.	Relationship
22	We use communication mechanisms to promote PDP inside and outside the institution.	Culture
23	Our team presents high diversity of knowledge and training in technology transfer projects.	People
24	We provide financial resources for the PDP, through the purchase of products or financing of projects, and for other innovation projects by notices and programs.	Funding

Dimension	Situational diagnosis
Strategy	A. Of those interviewed, 52.6% believe that the regulatory mark of PDP helps in the achievement of results; B. Positive and negative aspects of the regulatory framework were presented; C. Of those interviewed, 63% indicated suggestions for adjustments to the regulatory mark of the PDP, among them: increase the institutionality of the initiative with the publication of a law or decree on the PDP; improve predictability on the issue of prices; include criteria for health technology evaluation to define the list of products strategic for SUS; and define regulations for the implementation of PDP by public producers; D. Of the respondents of the producing entities, 88% had prospects of presenting proposals for PDP of drugs for chronic non-communicable diseases; 87% for other diseases; and 67% for neglected diseases.
Leadership	A. The respondents of the producing entities considered that the degree of involvement of high management in PDP is high (average of 4.5 in a range of 1 to 5). B. The government sector interviewees did not agree that the degree of involvement of senior management in the PDP was adequate for the implementation of the partnerships (Level of agreement of - 9.1%).
Funding	A. Of those interviewed, 50% considered that investments for the execution of PDP are paid off with the supply of products and 50% believe that an additional resource source is needed, being the most cited resource projects with BNDES; B. The participation of the PDPs in the total revenues of the entities was evaluated as below 50% in 62% of the entities, and as above 70% in 38% of the entities.
Culture	A. The degree of recognition of PDPs as a strategic priority from the perspective of the respondents of the producing entities was 4,3, which indicates a high degree; and the government sector was 3,6 (medium degree); B. The degree of intragovernmental articulation to achieve the PDP objectives was assessed as 3,3 (medium degree);
Culture	C. The willingness to take risks in ventures was assessed by the actors of the producing entities at 3,3 (medium degree) D. The degree of risk-taking in dealing with intersectoral conflicts was considered 3,4 by actors of the government sector (medium degree).
Structure	A. Of the respondents, 68.2% indicated that their producing entities need to purchase equipment; 54.5%, build; 45.5%, enlarge; 31.8%, reform; and 22.7% do not need adjustments B. The adequacy of the PDP monitoring framework (resources and instruments) was considered 100% by private entities; 67% by public producers and 29% by the government sector; C. Most respondents indicated that the detailing of technical visits and the frequency of meetings of the TRC, TEC and CD reports and visits to institutions should be increased; the frequency of follow-up reports should be reduced.
People	A. The respondents of the producing entities presented a need to increase the human resources framework for project management, research and development, quality assurance, quality control and production. B. Of the respondents of the producing entities, 47.6% reported that their team needed training, with 28.6% having experience in technology transfer projects, and 19.0%, not C. Government sector respondents stated the need to increase staffing for monitoring PDP. D. Of the government sector respondents, 78.5% indicated that their team needed training, and 71.4% reported having experience in technology transfer projects, and 7.1%, not
Relationship	A. The respondents reported having positive results generated from the interactions between the institutions, but indicated that networking in PDP has been little verified. B. Suggestions for improvement were presented for the interactions between the government sector and between these and the producer entities
Process	A. The adequacy level of the transfer methodology was rated at 92.0%. B. All stages of the establishment process of the PDP were considered critical, and in ascending order: phase II, phase I, phases III and IV C. The most critical activities in each phase were considered: phase IV - effective public production (indicated by 63% of respondents), phase III - factory suitability (34%), phase II - regulatory steps (35%), phase I - partner search/selection (26%) and executive project design (26%). D. Of the respondents of the producing entities, 80.9% indicated having specific team in the units for project management and monitoring. E. Suggestions for improvement at all stages of the process were presented.

Centro Brasileiro de Estudos de Saúde Av. Brasil, 4036, sala 802, 21040-361 Rio de Janeiro - RJ Brasil, Tel. 55 21-3882-9140, Fax.55 21-2260-3782 - Rio de Janeiro - RJ - Brazil
E-mail: revista@saudeemdebate.org.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] gabioliveira18@gmail.com