Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 5
Proceedings of a Workshop to Review PATH Strategy, Operating Plan, and Performance Measures 3 Overview of the 2003 NRC Assessment of PATH and HUD’s Current Response Manuel Gonzales KTGY Group, Inc. In the 2003 NRC assessment of PATH,1 the committee believed that the program initially placed too much emphasis on research and development; but during the course of the three-year study, it was evident that PATH was making an effort to refocus. The current draft strategic plan provided by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the workshop reflects that shift. The 2003 NRC assessment committee recommended that PATH continue as a federal program focused on identifying, understanding, and removing barriers to innovation in housing, disseminating information, and increasing industry investments in the development of new technologies. The 2003 NRC assessment noted that because PATH was a new and evolving program, ongoing expert review of the program’s performance and its response to those reviews are especially important. Effective program assessment is essential to PATH if it is to be efficiently managed. The NRC assessment report stated that “the program should be evaluated based on whether the activities it undertakes are likely to help achieve its goals and on the quantity and quality of the results of these activities. If PATH undertakes the right mix of high-performing activities, then improvement in measures of innovation in the housing industry can be attributed, at least in part, to PATH.” The draft operating plan and performance measures for PATH should be reviewed to determine if the goals depict innovation in the housing industry and are accurately communicated, and if the measures are effective for assessment of progress toward those goals. This is not an assessment of what PATH has done as much as an evaluation of the plan and metrics for the future. 1 National Research Council, 2003, Promoting Innovation: 2002 Assessment of the Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
Representative terms from entire chapter: