See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/385751227

Enhancing the Science and Technology Institutes Performance through

Implementation of Research and Development Projects: Phase I Educational
Workshop

Technical Report · October 2024

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25136.98561

CITATIONS READS

0 143

7 authors, including:

Koshila Maduwanthi Rasitha Thilini Surajana Perera

University of Sri Jayewardenepura National Science and Technology Commission , Sri Lanka
6 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS 15 PUBLICATIONS 4 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Piyumali K.G.D Sajini Dickmadugoda

National Science and Technology Commission National Science and Technology Commmision (NASTEC)
10 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS 11 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by National Science And Technology Commission Nastec - Sri Lanka on 13 November 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 National Science and Technology Commission
ISBN: 978-955-8630-36-5

Compiled by:

Koshila Maduwanthi (Orcid ID: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-0104-6008)

Rasitha Perera (Orcid ID: https://orcid.org/0009 0006-1937-6755)
Denisha Piyumali (Orcid ID: https://orcid.org/0009-0008-2186-3530)
Sajini Dickmadugoda (Orcid ID: https://orcid.org/0009-0007-0466-7565)
Thilini Munagamage (Orcid ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0289-4090)

Edited by:
Seyed Shahmy (Orcid ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2339-1572)

Copyright@2024
National Science and Technology Commission (NASTEC)
6th Floor (Wing D),
Sethsiripaya Stage II, Battaramulla

Tel/Fax: 011-2186711/011-2186713
Email: info@nastec.gov.lk/nastecoffice@gmail.com
Website: www.nastec.gov.lk

1|Page
 PREFACE
The National Science and Technology Commission (NASTEC) is mandated to review the
performance of Science and Technology (S&T) institutions under the powers vested by S&T
Development Act No. 11 of 1994. To date, NASTEC has reviewed nearly 40 S&T institutions across
the disciplines through a comprehensive approach with the engagement of external expert panel of
reviewers that aim to assess the contribution of the institution to the national economy in line with
their mandate in terms of Science, Technology and Innovation (STI).

As an outcome of the review, it was noted that several reviewed institutions failed to comply with the
National standard guidelines for submitting proposals to the National Planning Department (NPD).
As a result, most of the project proposals submitted by S&T institutions failed to secure funds from
State that would ultimately affect the performance of the institution. It is a collective call from the
institutions to have a strategy to improve the quality of proposals and thereby, enhance the rate of
acceptance of them by the funding bodies. Accordingly, NASTEC organized an educational
awareness workshop for the officials of S&T institutions to measure the impact.

NASTEC extends its sincere gratitude to the NPD for their invaluable contribution as resource
persons. We also wish to acknowledge and thank the officers from the S&T institutions for their
active participation, which played a crucial role in the success of the workshop.

National Science and Technology Commission

2024.10.25

2|Page
 ACRONYMS

IQR - Interquartile Range

MCQ - Multiple Choice Questions
NASTEC - National Science and Technology Commission
NBD - National Department of Budget
NPD - National Planning Department
NRF - National Research Foundation
Q10 - Question Number 10
R&D - Research and Development
S&T - Science and Technology
STI - Science, Technology and Innovation
UNESCO - The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
OECD -Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

3|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 6

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 7
2. OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................................................. 9
3. TARGET GROUP ........................................................................................................................................ 9
4. WORKSHOP OUTLINE ............................................................................................................................. 9
5. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................... 11
6. RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................... 12
6.1 pre-test ...................................................................................................................................................... 12
6.2 post-test .................................................................................................................................................... 13
6.3 Participants general feedback ................................................................................................................... 14
a) Summary of the participant’s feedback .......................................................................................... 14
b) Proposed future trainings:............................................................................................................... 16
6.4 For NASTEC Consideration: ................................................................................................................... 16
6.5 For NPD Consideration: ........................................................................................................................... 17
7. DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................................ 17
8. CONCLUSION: ......................................................................................................................................... 18
9. LIMITATIONS: ......................................................................................................................................... 19
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................... 20
Annexure 02 – Pre-test ................................................................................................................................... 22
Annexure 04 – Post-test.................................................................................................................................. 25
Annexure 05 – Session highlights .................................................................................................................. 27
Annexure 06 – List of participants ................................................................................................................. 28
Annexure 07 - Gantt chart: Phase I- II-III ...................................................................................................... 31

4|Page
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: A representation of the workshop content ...................................................................................... 11

Figure 2: Pre-test and post-test scores ............................................................................................................ 12
Figure 3: The percentages of the research areas in which the participants have marked as high priority areas
........................................................................................................................................................................ 13
Figure 4: Summary of the feedback about researchers and policy makers .................................................... 14
Figure 5: Participant feedback on workshop satisfaction ............................................................................... 15
Figure 6: Participant feedback on workshop length ....................................................................................... 15

5|Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Research and Development (R&D) plays a crucial role in driving the growth of a country within the
current knowledge economy by fostering innovation, technological advancements, and sustainable
solutions. Effective R&D funding is essential; nonetheless, securing these funds requires meeting
stringent criteria. In Sri Lanka, a significant portion of the R&D proposals submitted by the S & T
institutions failed to attract the funds during the proposal review stage by the Department of National
Planning (NPD) – the apex body on evaluating the proposals for state funding in Sri Lanka, due to
noncompliance with the National guidelines and Format on proposal submission. To address this,
NASTEC, in collaboration with NPD, conducted a centralized interactive awareness workshop
aimed at enhancing the quality and acceptance rate of the proposal submissions compliant with the
national guidelines. The workshop comprised of a series of knowledge-enhancing and dissemination
activities, including a pre-test, an informative session on the current format-guidelines, a Q&A
session, and a modulated case study, followed by a post-test at the end of the session. The results
showed that there was an immediate improvement in knowledge gain by the participants in the
workshop [Pre-test median: 5 (IQR: 4-6) Vs. Post-test median: 6 (IQR: 5-7); p<0.00001]. However,
it is a challenging that how the knowledge gained at this centralized workshop be successfully
disseminated to the staff at institutional level which is the Phase II of this project.

Nevertheless, the workshop participants stated that their top research priorities at this time are food
security (17.8%), climate resilience (14.2%), and preventing and managing non-communicable
diseases (13.4%). It was also indicated by them that the policymakers in the country have limited
scope in commercializing the R&D findings that recall the need for an effective centralized science
brokering system at the nexus of science and policy in the country [1-3].

NASTEC also planned a series of follow up activities on this educational workshop to expand over
24 months to assess the impact on it and ensure the knowledge dissemination at the institution level.

The report also proposes a set of recommendations to the major players, including the NPD and
NASTEC, on streamlining the process of proposal submission, in particular R&D.

6|Page
1. INTRODUCTION
It is now widely recognized in the economic literature that research and development (R&D) and
innovation are key forces behind economic growth, where science and technology (S&T) institutions
play the crucial role [4, 5]. R&D is the systematic pursuit of creative endeavours to translate
knowledge within the helix of humanity, culture, and society to innovate novel applications [6].
Therefore, investing in R&D raises the likelihood that S&T institutions will harness their maximum
potential to generate solutions not only technologically but also socio-economically sound to
pertaining national issues. It necessitates continuous funding for those projects in the S&T
institutions to ensure their functional smoothness [7].

As a rule of thumb, it is urged to precisely state the aims and the milestones with a clear timeline
towards the expected outcomes of the projects in proposals. Accordingly, the proposals include a
detailed budget with justification for the activities linked to the chain of value creation. Usually, the
steps involved in these activities are defined through a series of national guidelines by the responsible
agencies. The proposals that failed to address them accordingly owe the worries of the fund
mismanagement [8, 9]. The lack of knowledge about crafting sound proposals that adhere to those
national guidelines broadens the gap between these elements; the result would be a high rejection
rate at first glance [10]. Effective communication with the stakeholders is essential to bringing the
sound proposals to the table. It is crucial to overcome this.

Nowadays, the competitive grants strive to support the sound R&D projects across the sectors with
potential to address the national issues within the paradigm of global calls: sustainability and climate
change. And the nations are set to align the guidelines accordingly and the submissions of R&D
proposals in accordance with those guidelines have a highly likelihood to be accepted by National
bodies for funding, the situation in Sri Lanka too not exempted from it. In here, the Department of
National Planning (NPD), Ministry of Finance – the state agency that screens the R&D proposals
submission locally. Nevertheless, most of the R&D proposals, in particular, submitted to them by
the S&T institutions in here failed to secure the state funds at first glance [11]

It was also noted by the S&T institutional review exercise taken by the National Science and
Technology Commission of Sri Lanka (NASTEC) - the apex body to review the performance of
S&T institutions according to the S &T Development Act No. 11 of 1994. It was revealed that the
institutions subjected for the review during the last five years have failed to generate sound project
proposals in compliance to the standard national format/guidelines – the NPD format to secure the
state fund. As a result, the subjected institutions collectively urge from NATEC to address it through

7|Page
a series of structured awareness events, such as workshops or any other means of training sessions,
to improve generating quality project proposals adhere to the national guidelines to enable successful
proposal submissions.

The literature in social sciences and policy studies recommends the mode of delivery of knowledge
to the professionals appropriately. Educational workshops are an effective approach that can be used
to create awareness for the desired purpose, composed of interactive teaching sessions,
brainstorming sessions, and case studies with long-term benefits through retention of knowledge
while enhancing the participants’ attractiveness and satisfaction [12, 13]. It also enables the
competency development, interactive learnings, practical work opportunities, intensive engagement,
and applying emerging information and abilities [14]. The impact of the workshop could be
strengthened by a series of follow-up assessments. There are number of tools and techniques could
be applied through this approach at the steps to ensure the long-term impacts [15-17].

Accordingly, NASTEC with the consultation of NPD and relevant bodies, designed an interactive
tailor-made workshop aimed at enhancing the capacity development of scientific officers on
effective project proposal submissions in compliance with National Guidelines - the NPD format.
The aim of the workshop is to improve the quality on crafting the project proposals and thereby
enhance the rate of acceptance of the proposals by the NPD at first glance. Thereby, contributing to
the improvement of the performance of the institutions through timely execution of sound projects.
The workshop composed of assessing the effectiveness of the immediate knowledge gained by the
participants at the initial workshop, followed by a number of activities on the dissemination of the
workshop-gained knowledge to peers at the institutional level via ‘train the trainer’ mode. On August
13, 2024, at Mini Auditorium 3, Level 5, UCFM Tower, Faculty of Medicine, University of
Colombo, the workshop successfully brought together 81 participants from across the sectors of
S&T.
This report gives a comprehensive analysis of the outcome of the workshop under Phase I of the core
project “Enhancing S&T institutional performance through implementation of R&D projects."

The report is structured as: Section 1: Introduction; rationalise the work; Section 2: Objectives of the
core project; Section 3: Target Group; Section 4: describes the outline of the workshop; Section 5:
Method of data collection and statistical analysis, followed by Section 6: Results, includes a number
of descriptive tables and charts under data analysis, the views of the participants on the research
priority areas, respectively, and a set of system improvement directives to state agencies, followed

8|Page
by general feedback on the workshop. Section 7 discusses the findings in light of the literature, and
thereby Section 8 draws the conclusion within the limitations of the work.

2. OBJECTIVES
01- Phase I: Capacity development of R&D officers on effective project proposal
submission.

02- Phase II: Enhancing the quality of project proposal submissions by S&T institutions in
accordance with national development priorities.
03- Phase III: Uplifting the performance of S&T institutions through the implementation of
projects in compliance with the national guidelines.

3. TARGET GROUP
The workshop was targeted for the senior officers of the public sector S&T institutions mapped by
the NASTEC as per international guidelines in UNESCO and the OECD Frascati Manual [18-20].
Each institution was requested to nominate two officers representing the scientific and the
development staff, respectively, who are directly involved in the project proposal submission
process. The workshop was conducted with 81 participants from 40 S&T institutions that were
subjected to the S&T Institutional Performance Review of NASTEC for the period from 2013 to
2023. The list of the participants is attached as Annexure 6.

4. WORKSHOP OUTLINE

The workshop was designed as the first phase of the project to make aware and train the senior
officials of the S&T institutions who frequently involve and lead in research proposal submissions.

• The session commenced with an address by the Additional Secretary of the Development
and Innovation Division at the Ministry of Education, who emphasized the importance of
translating research into commercially viable products or services that benefit society.
• Director General of the Department of National Planning, followed with a presentation on
the government's project approval procedures, highlighting the need for alignment with
national priorities.

9|Page
 • A special address on “A Systematic Approach to Addressing Research Priorities for National
Development” was delivered by the Chairperson of the National Science and Technology
Commission (NASTEC).
• One of the directors of the NPD played the key resource person and trainer of the workshop,
then guided the participants through the current project submission format, followed by an
interactive Q&A session
• The case study was selected by NPD with a focus on practical scenarios relevant to S&T
institutions. Participants were divided into five groups, with each group assigned a specific
section of the project proposal submission format. Each group was tasked with completing
their respective section, followed by group presentations to present their answers. The
primary objective of the case study was to provide participants with hands-on experience in
developing project proposals, ensuring they acquired practical knowledge and skills
applicable to real-world situations in the S&T sector.
• A pre-test was administered prior to the commencement of the workshop to assess
participants' existing knowledge of project proposal submission guidelines. To evaluate the
knowledge gained from the workshop, a post-test was conducted at its conclusion. Both the
pre-test and post-test were collaboratively developed by NPD and the NASTEC to accurately
measure the participants' understanding.
• A senior scientist of NASTEC delivered the closing remarks, and the event concluded with
the distribution of certificates to the participants.

Phase II of the project will involve a series of workshops in a "train-the-trainer" mode at the
institutional level. In this phase, participants from the initial centralized workshop will be responsible
for transferring the gained knowledge and skills to the rest of the staff within their respective
institutions. The series of activities at the institutional level will also encompass monitoring and
evaluation tools to ensure the broader dissemination of the acquired knowledge at the institutional
level.

10 | P a g e
 Pre-Test

PHASE II
PHASE I
Information Knowledge
Workshop Session Dissemination
(Centralized Knowledge
/Training: Knowledge Series of workshops
Accumulation at the institutional
Case Study level

"train-the-trainer"
mode
Post Test

PHASE III

Monitoring and
Evaluation

Figure 1: A representation of the workshop content

5. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
There were nine multiple-choice questions (MCQ) on the pre- and post-test questionnaires, and each
correct response was worth one point, for a total score of nine, followed by an additional question,
Q10, with a descriptive and textual nature, respectively. The paired sets of the first nine MCQs were
analyzed through a nonparametric statistics Wilcoxon-signed rank test with a significance level of
p<0.05. The medians were calculated using 95% confidence intervals. The descriptive data were
presented through tables, percentiles, and charts.

11 | P a g e
 Figure 2: Pre-test and post-test scores

6. RESULTS
Out of 81 attendees, 73 data points were included for analysis since nine of the participants failed to
take the pre- and post-tests. There is a statistically significant difference between the pre- and post-
test scores, with the median scores being 5/9 (IQR: 4-6) and 6/9 (IQR: 5-7), respectively
(p<0.00001).

6.1 pre-test

The pre-test, consisting of nine MCQs, designed to assess participants’ (n=73) existing knowledge
on project proposal submissions to the NPD, resulted in a median score of 5/9 (IQR: 4-6).

As response to Q10, a qualitative and textual question aimed at evaluating the views of the
participants on current research priority areas in the country, food security, climate resilience, and
coping with non-communicable disease management were identified as the top three critical areas
for consideration for government immediate attention.

Figure 3 below provides a detailed illustration of the results.

12 | P a g e
 Popolation growth studies 4.82%
Oceongraphy 2.28%
Non-communicable disease… 13.45%

Research area AI and digitalization 8.88%

Green energy studies 12.18%
Value addition to natural resources 11.68%
Food security 17.77%
Cultural heritage preservation 4.06%
Town planning 10.15%
Space science 0.51%
Climate resilience 14.21%

0 20 40 60 80
Frequency

Figure 3: The percentages of the research areas in which the participants have marked as high priority areas

6.2 post-test

The post-test to evaluate the knowledge gained by the participants (n=73) in the workshop resulted
in a median score of 6/9 (IQR: 5-7).

The post-test's Q10 was designed to determine the extent of participants’ agreement with the
statement that “Policymakers and legislators’ interests in materializing the research findings for
national economic gain”. Thirty-nine percent (39%) of participants strongly agreed that the
consequences of the lack of effective communication of researchers with legislators in this region
are the main cause of their lacking interest in R&D contribution for economic development. It
brought to light the need for establishing a national science brokering system to facilitate
communication between researchers and policymakers [1, 3].

The detailed depictions of the post-test Q10 findings are given in the below figures from 4

13 | P a g e
 Summary of the Feedback on Policy Formulation

Strongly agree (n)

30 Research findings may lack a format that
40%
25 is easily understandable and actionable
20 for policymakers
Not applicable (n) 15 Agree (n)
10 25% Policymakers may prioritize based on
4%5 their experience
0

Research findings may be too complex

Stongly disagree 32% 30% for practical application
22% Neutral (n)
(n)

Research findings may prioritize long-

Disagree (n) term impacts over immediate needs

Figure 4: Summary of the feedback about researchers and policy makers

Based on the views of the workshop participants, forty percent of them strongly agreed that the
research findings lack the ability to translate them to the policymakers—legislatures—in an easily
understandable way within their political context. The 25% of them also agreed that research
findings are too complex for practical applications. Another 22% of them viewed the research
findings as prioritizing immediate needs over long-term impacts. The full details of the view of the
attendees are depicted in figure 4 above.

6.3 Participants general feedback

As part of the workshop, feedback was sought from the attendees on their view on the program and
to find the attendees’ interest on the areas for future trainings.

The results of them are categorized in below subsections a, b) and c) respectively.

a) Summary of the participant’s feedback

14 | P a g e
Of the attendees, 92% of them were satisfied with the overall workshop, and despite this,
26% of the participants also viewed that the duration of the teaching session in the program
was too short and expected a long-run training session.

Figure 5: Participant feedback on workshop satisfaction

Figure 6: Participant feedback on workshop length

15 | P a g e
b) Proposed future trainings:

• In detailed trainings on proposal writing, including the budgetary and financial

analysis components, with practical exercises.
• Awareness programs in policies, budget limits, research gaps, innovation
methodologies, cross-functional collaboration, market research, digital skills,
sustainability practices, research data analysis methods, drone technology, problem
tree analysis, and commercialization of research findings
• Sector-specific workshops on project submissions with features of practical case
studies focused on the STI sector.
• More detailed guidance on integrating national priority areas
• Tips and strategies for accelerating the project proposal approval process.
• Mentorship by the successful program grant holders.
• Workshops on ethical considerations in human-animal-based pre- and clinical
research

❖ The subsections 6.4 and 6.5 below gives the participants view on how NASTEC & NPD
could play on the future endeavors in S&T institution collaboration, respectively

6.4 For NASTEC Consideration:

• Support for advancing the seed sector, vaccine and biological
development for livestock, food safety, gamma irradiation technology
initiatives, carbon footprint awareness, mineral-based research and
education, agriculture, and sustainable mountain development:
• Technical support Assistance with acquiring equipment and chemicals
through research grants.
• Facilitation of foreign collaborations to support international
collaborative programs, including joint R&D ventures:
• Additional support in writing and securing mega grants.
• Establish mechanisms to find partners for collaborative and
commercialized research projects, including applied, basic, and socio-
economic research.
• Providing opportunities for training in specific research and development
subject areas.

16 | P a g e
 • Training and support in project management.
• Conduct workshops on writing proposals for funding and identifying
sources, including project management.
• Technological innovation and capacity building, research collaboration
and industry partnerships, investor communication platform
• Knowledge sharing platforms: organization of platforms to share
knowledge and ensure the scientific community engagement in effective
communication with NPD.

6.5 For NPD Consideration:

• Provide guidance on finding collaborative partners for socio-economic

research.
• Align NPD operations with a national development framework, guiding
agencies to meet development targets. This framework should be specific to
a time line with respective provinces with defined goals.
• Publish a list of identified priority areas for research grants.
• Organize international workshops to expose S&T staff to practices on
exposure to developed nations and increase the interactivity of NPD
workshops.
• Provide more frequent updates on the NPD website.
• Simplify the project submission format for specific disciplines, such as pure
research proposals. Revise the existing format based on feedback from the
scientific community, followed by training on the new format.
• Recognize that not all research will be marketed or commercialized,
especially research focused on national services.

7. DISCUSSION
Many S&T institutions struggle to align their research proposals with national priorities, leading to
high rejection rates [21, 22]. The synergizing performance of institutions is composed of
streamlining the activities of their respective project value creation chains that would liaise from the
initial steps of proposal submission and secure funds to ending with achieving the desired

17 | P a g e
outcome. Therefore, building staff capability throughout the proposal submission phase provides a
foundation for the success of the project. Training S&T institutional executives to solve such
challenges in accordance with national guidelines—in Sri Lanka's perspective, the NPD
guidelines—was the main goal of this project under Phase I.

The approach is supported by the literature in the field; in particular, a Malaysian study report on the
challenges in aligning the objectives of S&T project proposals with national priorities. The study
further reveals that the lack of awareness among the players in the system is one of the key reasons
for it. The study recommends that the gap in awareness could be addressed to a great extent by
workshop sessions as a part of capacity development [23]. In order to give trainees real-world
exposure, it was suggested in two further studies carried out in South Africa and India to incorporate
the training modules with case studies, group activities, and practical, hands-on assignments [24,
25]. The workshop was designed based on the recommendations provided accordingly for effective
knowledge sharing mechanisms among the peers. The results show that the effectiveness of the mode
improved in the knowledge of the attendees. It was also able to draw the attendees view on the
national priority to be considered for the R&Ds at this juncture, which was a bonus point on gathering
information for informed decision-making. In this regard, the proposed areas for R&D: food security,
climate resilience, and coping with the epidemic of non-communicable diseases are in line with the
SDG Targets and the Paris climate accord[26, 27], and it is promising to attract not only local but
also global funds if the proposals meet the standard guidelines.

In terms of boosting the performance of the institutions, the immediate outcome of the work (Phase
I)—the knowledge gained by the attendees—the NASTEC will ensure that attendees share their
gained knowledge with their peers at the institutional level (Phase II). The entire activity will be
strengthened by phase III of the project—an efficient monitoring and evaluation system to be in
place to reap the program outcome on a long-term basis.

8. CONCLUSION:
Phase I of the project—the workshop on improving S&T institutional performance through R&D
projects proved to be successful. A significant increase in participants' knowledge of project proposal
submission was seen immediately after the event. In line with the nation's economic and sustainable
development objectives, the participants identified food security, climate resilience, and non-
communicable illness management as Sri Lanka's top research priorities. Attendees offered several
recommendations that the NASTEC and NPD could consider in order to streamline proposal

18 | P a g e
submissions and obtain state funding. It is urged that future workshops with the expanded modules
target a large number of participants across the sectors.

9. LIMITATIONS:

The duration of the workshop may confine the in-depth exploration of complex topics on the subject.
The number of enrolments for the workshop may be inadequate to generalize the findings. The years
of experience of them in the subject is also not available, and it is an individual factor that would
have an impact on the rate of knowledge gained and capability of dissemination of the knowledge.
The long-term impact of the workshop depends on the series of follow-up activities at the
institutional level to ensure knowledge dissemination. Phase II of the project includes implementing
such follow-up activities over 24 months, which would address all those limitations.

19 | P a g e
REFERENCES
1. Shahmy S, Munagamage T, Perera W, Fernando S. A proposed National Science Advice System to
the Government of an Emerging Economy in South Asia. Researchgate june 20192019.
2. Shahmy S, Munagamage T, Perera W, Fernando S. A proposed National Science Advice System to
the Government of an Emerging Economy in South Asia. 2022.
3. Seyed Shahmy WRTSP, Thilini Munagamage,Sirimali Fernando, editor New horizon for data-driven
Science for Policy -A proposed system to generate robust scientific evidence. 4th International
Conference- INGSA 2021; 2021; Canada.
4. Bilbao‐Osorio B, Rodríguez‐Pose A. From R&D to innovation and economic growth in the EU.
Growth and Change. 2004;35(4):434-55.
5. McMorrow K, Röger WJEp. R&D capital and economic growth: The empirical evidence.
2009;14(1):94-118.
6. Bayarcelik EB, Taşel F. Research and development: Source of economic growth. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences. 2012;58:744-53.
7. Weerasinghe R, Jayawardane A, Huang QJST, Entrepreneurship. Critical inquiry on national
innovation system: Does NIS fit with developing countries? 2024;3(1):100052.
8. Balakumar P, Inamdar MN, Jagadeesh G. The critical steps for successful research: The research
proposal and scientific writing: (A report on the pre-conference workshop held in conjunction with
the 64th annual conference of the Indian Pharmaceutical Congress-2012). Journal of Pharmacology
and Pharmacotherapeutics. 2013;4(2):130-8.
9. Coley SM, Scheinberg CA. Proposal writing: Effective grantsmanship: Sage; 2008.
10. Locke W. Shifting academic careers: implications for enhancing professionalism in teaching and
supporting learning. 2014.
11. NPD. Operational Manual Project Submission Format. In: Lanka DoNPoS, editor. Ministry of
National Policies, Economic Affairs: GoSL; 2019. p. 31.
https://www.npd.gov.lk/images/circulars/attachment_to_annex_1_operational_manual.pdf
12. Kutbiddinova RA, Eromasova A, Romanova MA. The Use of Interactive Methods in the Educational
Process of the Higher Education Institution. International Journal of Environmental and Science
Education. 2016;11(14):6557-72.
13. Kolb DA. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development: FT press;
2014.
14. Prkosovački BP, Stijačić MP, Jovanović NB. Educational workshops: positive impact on teaching
and learning. Pedagoška obzorja. 2020;35(1):42-55.
15. Hsieh P, Acee T, Chung W-H, Hsieh Y-P, Kim H, Thomas GD, et al. Is educational intervention
research on the decline? Journal of Educational Psychology. 2005;97(4):523.
16. Khandker SR, Koolwal GB, Samad HA. Handbook on impact evaluation: quantitative methods and
practices: World Bank Publications; 2009.
17. Michie S, Wood CE, Johnston M, Abraham C, Francis J, Hardeman WJHta. Behaviour change
techniques: the development and evaluation of a taxonomic method for reporting and describing
behaviour change interventions (a suite of five studies involving consensus methods, randomised
controlled trials and analysis of qualitative data). 2015;19(99):1-188.
18. Scientific M. Technological Services (STS): Draft Paper for Consultation: Doc.
UIS/2017/STS/TD/10, October 2017 [Electronic resource]//UNESCO Institute for …, 2017.
19. Ker D, Galindo-Rueda F. Frascati manual R&D and the system of national accounts. 2017.
20. Sirilli G. Manual for statistics on scientific and technological activities; provisional. 1980.
21. Ràfols I. S&T indicators in the wild: Contextualization and participation for responsible metrics.
Research evaluation. 2019;28(1):7-22.
22. Bornmann L, Leydesdorff L, Van den Besselaar P. A meta-evaluation of scientific research proposals:
Different ways of comparing rejected to awarded applications. Journal of Informetrics.
2010;4(3):211-20.
23. An overview of Malaysia's National Innovation System. 2006.
24. Annual Report. Department of Biotechnology, Ministry of Scienece & Technology, Government of
India, 2024.

20 | P a g e
25. NRF/ DFG PARTNERSHIP ON INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH TRAINING GROUPS 2024.
Available from: https://www.nrf.ac.za/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/International-Research-
Training-Groups-IRTGs-%E2%80%93-2024-Funding-Guide.pdf.
26. Ghufran M, Aldieri L, Pyka A, Ali S, Bimonte G, Senatore L, et al. Food security assessment in the
light of sustainable development goals: a post-Paris agreement era. 2024:1-29.
27. Nugent R, Bertram MY, Jan S, Niessen LW, Sassi F, Jamison DT, et al. Investing in non-
communicable disease prevention and management to advance the Sustainable Development Goals.
2018;391(10134):2029-35.

21 | P a g e
 Annexure 02 – Pre-test

Workshop on “Enhancing Science and Technology Institutional Performance through the

Implementation of Research and Development Projects”

Organized by the National Science and Technology Commission in collaboration with the
Department of National Planning

PRE-TEST

1) What project size requires approval from the National Planning Department (NPD)?
a) Below Rs. 10 Mn
b) Rs. 10 Mn to Rs. 100 Mn
c) Over Rs. 10 Mn
d) Over Rs. 100 Mn

2) What is not included in a project rationale?

a) Existing problems to be addressed by the project and its root causes
b) Mode of interventions to address the problem
c) How does the project contribute to fulfilling the existing gap
d) Objectives of the project

3) What is not associated with risks?

a) Are conditions that are less likely to happen
b) could negatively affect the achievement of results
c) are beyond the control of the project
d) could be pre-determined completely

4) What should be included in the Total Estimated Cost of the project? Please tick
a) Maintenance Cost
b) Equipment cost
c) Initial project preparation cost
d) Training cost

5) What does "project output" refer to?

a) The outputs produced by a set of activities or processes
b) Goods and services delivered to the target beneficiaries by the project
c) The overall impact of the project
d) The public benefits achieved from the successful completion of the project

6) What does "project outcome" mean?

a) The likely or achieved short-term and medium-term effects of a project outputs
b) The goals and objectives that the project aimed to achieve
c) The resulting products and services by implementing the project
d) The final results and key findings of the project

7) Change of which component, does not require re-approval?

a) Budget
b) Scope

22 | P a g e
 c) Time
d) Assumptions

8) If a project has a negative Net Present Value (NPV), is it viable to implement?

a) Yes
b) No

9) Why is it important to explore alternative funding sources beyond government funds

during the project planning stage?
a) Diversification of Funding Risks
b) Increased Financial Flexibility
c) Enhanced Project Viability
d) All of the Above

10) Below is a list of research areas. As per your opinion, please indicate the priority level
for each, using a scale of 1 to 4, where:

1 – Very Important and Very Urgent (Critical for immediate national development and
economic growth)
2 – Important but Not Urgent (Significant for future development but not immediate)
3 – Not Important and Not Urgent (Less critical for current national priorities
4 – Low Priority (Minimal impact on current national economic development goals)

Very Important Not Low

important and but not important Priority
Research Area very urgent urgent and not
urgent
Climate Resilience 1 2 3 4
Space Sciences 1 2 3 4
Town Planning 1 2 3 4
Cultural Heritage Preservation 1 2 3 4
Food Security 1 2 3 4
Value Addition to Natural Recourses 1 2 3 4
Green Energy Studies 1 2 3 4
AI and Digitalization 1 2 3 4
Non-Communicable Disease Management 1 2 3 4
Oceanography 1 2 3 4
Population Growth Studies 1 2 3 4

23 | P a g e
 Annexure 03 – Case Study
Case Study: Assessing the Effects of Agricultural Runoff on Water Quality and Ecosystem
Health in the Malwathu Oya River Basin
Water is vital for both aquatic ecosystems and community well-being. In an ideal scenario, abundant
and clean water fosters a thriving environment where diverse species can thrive. However, this
balance is increasingly disrupted by various factors. Climate change poses a major threat to water
purity and availability, while diminished water levels have exacerbated pollution, rendering water
unsafe for consumption.
There are four major river basins in Sri Lanka—Kaluganga, Kelaniganga, Malwathu Oya, and
Deduru Oya—each covering an area greater than 2,000 square kilometers. The Malwathu Oya River
Basin, a crucial ecological and economic area, is heavily affected by agricultural practices. The
extensive use of fertilizers and pesticides in farming results in nutrient runoff, which leads to
significant water quality problems such as hypoxia (low oxygen levels) and harmful algal blooms.
This case study aims to examine the effects of agricultural runoff on water quality and ecosystem
health in this critical region, assess current mitigation practices, and recommend improvements or
new strategies as needed.

Group Tasks:
1. Each group is required to propose an appropriate title for their proposal.
2. Each group will be assigned to complete a specific section of the project submission format.
3. Upon conclusion of the group activity, each group will be expected to deliver a brief
presentation on their assigned section.

24 | P a g e
 Annexure 04 – Post-test

Workshop on “Enhancing Science and Technology Institutional Performance through the

Implementation of Research and Development Projects”

Organized by the National Planning Department in collaboration with the National Science
and Technology Commission

POST-TEST

Select the most suitable answer for the following questions

10) What Project size requires approval from the National Planning Department (NPD)?
e) Below Rs. 10 Mn
f) Rs. 10 Mn to Rs. 100 Mn
g) Over Rs. 10 Mn
h) Over Rs. 100 Mn

11) What does the term "project rationale" refer to?

a) The estimated budget and timeline for the project
b) The tools and techniques used for project management
c) The justification and underlying reasons for initiating the project
d) The list of project stakeholders and their responsibilities

12) Why is risk analysis important in project management?

a) It helps in determining the project budget
b) It identifies and assesses potential problems before they occur, allowing for better planning
and mitigation strategies
c) It ensures the project will be completed on time
d) It guarantees the project will be successful without any issues

13) Why is it important to calculate the total estimated cost of a project accurately?
a) To ensure the project’s goals are achieved
b) To allocate sufficient funds and avoid cost overruns
c) To schedule project tasks effectively
d) To evaluate the project’s impact on stakeholders

14) What key factors should be considered when formulating project Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs)?
a) The project’s budget and timeline
b) The specific goals and objectives of the project
c) The team’s preferences and working hours
d) The project’s stakeholders’ preference

15) Which of the following statements about "project outcomes" is incorrect?

a) Project outcomes usually take time to emerge and become visible
b) Project outcomes are the specific goals and objectives that the project aims to achieve
c) Project outcomes cannot be directly controlled by the project implementers

25 | P a g e
 d) Project outcomes indicate the effectiveness of the project

16) Change of which component, does not require re-approval?

a) Budget
b) Scope
c) Time
d) Assumptions

17) What does the Net Present Value (NPV) measure in project evaluation?
a) The total expenses incurred throughout the project
b) The difference between the project’s total revenue and total costs
c) The value of future cash flows discounted to their present value, subtracting initial
investment
d) The estimated profit margins of the project

18) Which of the following statements about project funding is incorrect?

a) Proponent funding cannot be used as a funding source for projects
b) Beneficiary contribution can be used as a funding source
c) Co-financing is an effective strategy to obtain funding for projects
d) Loans and grants are external funding sources that can be used for projects

19) To what extent do you agree that policymakers may show limited interest in utilizing
research findings? (Please rate your response on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being
'Strongly Agree' and 5 being 'Strongly Disagree.')"

Strongly Strongly
Agreed Disagreed N/A
a)The research findings may not
be presented in a format that is
1 2 3 4 5 6
easily understandable and
actionable for policymakers
b)Policymakers may rely more on
their own experience than on 1 2 3 4 5 6
research data

c)Research findings may be

overly complex and technical,
1 2 3 4 5 6
making them difficult to apply in
practical terms

d) Research findings may focus

too much on long-term impacts
1 2 3 4 5 6
rather than addressing immediate
needs

26 | P a g e
Annexure 05 – Session highlights

27 | P a g e
 Annexure 06 – List of participants

Name of the officer Name of the Institution

P. C. Abeysiriwardhana Ministry of Education-Research & Innovation Division
P.V.N.P.Amarasinghe Medical Research Institute
Ms. Nirupama Andramana National Aquaculture Development Authority of Sri Lanka
A.M.S. Athapaththu Rural Development Training and Research Institute
I.H.K.Samarasinghe Rubber Research Institute of Sri Lanka
B. M. W. L. Balasooriya Farm Mechanization Research Centre
N.P.S.N.Bandara Tea Research Institute of Sri Lanka
Madara Cooray National Aquaculture Development Authority of Sri Lanka
Dr.N.P.S De Silva Rice Research And Development Institute
Mr. P.H.P.R. De Siva Coconut Research Institute of Sri Lanka
Sajini Dickmadugoda National Science and Technology Commission
Dr. H.D.M.A.C. Dissanayake Coconut Research Institute of Sri Lanka
Sameera Dissanayake Sri Lanka Council for Agricultural Research Policy
N. N. W. Dolawatta Sri Lanka Inventors Commission
Dr Viraj Edirisinghe Sri Lanka Atomic Energy Board
E. S. C. Edirisinghe Plant Genetic Resources Center
Mr. Dinuka Edirisinghe Si Lanka Institute of Biotechnology
Nuwanthika Prasadi Edirisinghe Ministry of Education
Dr. Nimshi Fernando Sri Lanka Academy of Young Scientists
Dr. M.K.R.Silva Rubber Research Institute of Sri Lanka
Ms. H.G.C.P Gamage Disaster Management Centre
Dr. Chamith Hewawaduge Si Lanka Institute of Biotechnology
Chinthaka Jayasooriya Hector Kobbekaduwa Agrarian research and Training Institute
Dr. Chulantha Jayawardena Sri Lanka Academy of Young Scientists
Maheshika Kalpage Sri Lanka Atomic Energy Board
Mr.Mahesh Karunarathna National Fertilizer Secretariat
W.K.N.N.Kaushalya Rural Development Training and Research Institute
Dr P G A L Kumara Department of Export Agriculture
P.A.D. Ajith Kumara National Aquatic Resources Research & Development Agency
W.M.Ranjala Kumari Fruit Crops Research and Development Institute
Pubudu Liyanagama Sri Lanka Inventors Commission

28 | P a g e
H. Induni Dhananjali Liyanage National Research Council
Prof. Ruvini Liyanage National Institute of Fundamental Studies
T . Liyanage Department of Export Agriculture
Y. M. H. Liyanage Seed Certification & Plant Protection Center
A.A.Ganga Madurakanthi Sri Lanka Atomic Energy Board
Koshila Maduwanthi National Science and Technology Commission
S. M. Tilusha Manchanayake Veterinary Research Institute
M.A Nadeeka Manthrirathna Gem and Jewellery Research and Training Institute
Prof. Nazrim Marikkar National Institute of Fundamental Studies
Amoda Mayakaduwa Agriculture Research Station, Seetha Eliya
M.M.G.K.Meegahakotuwa Ministry of Education (Research And Innovation Division)
Nusaike Mufthie National Innovation Agency Sri Lanka
Thilini Munagamage National Science and Technology Commission
Mahesha Nadugala National Science Foundation
B.L.S.P.Nishantha Sri Lanka Institute of Textiles and Apparel
Dr.Buddini Nissanka Sri Lanka Institute of Nanotechnology (Pvt) Ltd
MGSP Pathirana Horticultural Crops Research and Development Institute
Ms. Robika Pathmaraj Palmyrah Research Institute
D.Deepani Perera Ministry of Education, Research and Innovation Division
Ms. R.N. I. Perera Fruit Research and Development Institute
Rasitha Perera National Science and Technology Commission
Thushara Vajera Perera Sri Lanka Institute of Nanotechnology (Pvt) Ltd
K.G.D. Piyumali National Science and Technology Commission
A.A.C Priyantha Geological Survey and Mines Bureau
R.H.K. Rathnappriya National Research Council
Chinthaka Rathnasiri National Building Research Organization
Dr. N.P.G. Samantha Hector Kobbekaduwa Agrarian Research and Training Institute
Dr Dineth Samarawickrama National Science and Technology Commission
Dr Inoka Sandanayake National Science Foundation
Sumudu Senanayake Natural Resources Management Center
Eng. K Y H D Shantha National Engineering Research and Development Centre
H.W.Shyamalie Tea Research Institute
Dr. A G M T Siriwardhana National Engineering Research and Development Centre

29 | P a g e
Suganja Thuraisingam Palmyrah Research Institute
Dr . C. Ranasinghe Rice research and Development Institute
W.M.D.G.C.N.Warnakulasooriya Farm Mechanization Research Centre
W.M.C.B.Wasala National Institute of Post-Harvest Management
W.A.T.L Weerakkody Sri Lanka Atomic Energy Board
Dr. Gayani Weerasooriya Veterinary Research Institute
W.A.G.K.Wickramasinghe Geological Survey and Mines Bureau
W.A.S.Wijendra Medical Research Institute
Nuwanthi Wijesinghe Gem and Jewellery and Research and Training Institute
Vindya Wijesinghe National Innovation Agency Sri Lanka
Dr R.M.N.A.Wijewardane National Institute of Postharvest Management
Vagira Asela Angampodi Industrial Technology Institute
Dr. Imaya Ariyarathna National Building Research Organization
Rameeza Bahn Sri Lanka Institute of Textile and Apparel
DR. K.G.Surangi Bandaranayake Memorial Ayurvedic Research Institute
Dr. A. Maniraj Bandaranayake Memorial Ayurvedic Research Institute
Dr. Rochana Weearasinghe National Aquatic Resources Research and Development Agency

30 | P a g e
 Annexure 07 - Gantt chart: Phase I- II-III

This chart visualizes the timeline and duration of each task necessary for the successful planning and
execution of the workshop. By adhering to this schedule, all preparatory and follow-up activities
will be conducted efficiently, leading to an effective and impactful workshop.

Year

2024 2025 2026

Activity J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M
U U U E C O E A E A P A U U U E C O E A E A P A
N L G P T V C N B R R Y N L G P T V C N B R R Y
E Y C I E Y C I
H L H L
Background study
Approval from NPD
Final project proposal
Selecting the resource persons from NPD,
NASTEC, and NBD
Workshop content development with the
resource persons
Conducting the central workshop
Institutional workshops
Monitoring the progress of the proposal
submission adhering to national guidelines
Follow up discussions between NPD and
NASTEC
Final Report submission

31 | P a g e
 National Science and Technology Commission - Battaramulla, Sri Lanka @ 2024-11-13

32 | P a g e

View publication stats