Tiếng Việt| MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY | SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM |
| No. 18/2019/TT-BKHCN | Hanoi, December 10, 2019 |
MINISTER OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Pursuant to the Law on Science and Technology dated June 18, 2013;
Pursuant to the Government's Decree No. 08/2014/ND-CP dated January 27, 2014, elaborating and providing guidance on the implementation of a number of articles of the Law on Science and Technology;
Pursuant to the Government's Decree No. 95/2017/ND-CP dated August 16, 2017, defining the functions, tasks, powers and organizational structure of the Ministry of Science and Technology;
Pursuant to the Government’s Decree No. 16/2015/ND-CP dated February 14, 2015 prescribing the self-regulatory mechanism of public sector bodies;
Pursuant to the Government’s Decree No. 54/2016/ND-CP dated June 14, 2016 prescribing the self-regulatory mechanism of public scientific and technological service providers;
In compliance with the Prime Minister’s Decision No. 2099/QD-TTg dated December 27, 2017, introducing the List of state-funded public services falling under the state management of Ministry of Science and Technology;
Upon the request of the Director of Vietnam Center for Science and Technology Evaluation, and the Director of Department of Legislation
Minister of Science and Technology hereby promulgates the Circular prescribing assessment of performance and service quality of public scientific and technological service providers.
This Circular prescribes criteria, methods and processes for assessment of performance and service quality of public scientific and technological service providers.
Article 2. Subjects of application
1. State regulatory authorities, performance and service quality assessment bodies, and public scientific and technological service providers.
2. Entities and persons involved in assessment of performance and service quality of public scientific and technological service providers.
For the purposes of this Circular, terms used herein shall be construed as follows:
1. Services of a public scientific and technological service provider refers to a service rendered to support the state management of scientific and technological services; development of scientific and technological potentials; intellectual property; standards, metrology and quality; atomic energy, radiation and nuclear safety; professional, knowledge and skill training and improvement courses in the science and technology sector;
2. Service quality of a public scientific and technological service provider refers to the general result of an index showing levels of satisfaction of requirements for services that this public service provider is rendering;
3. Assessment criterion refers to a criterion designed for assessment of results achieved in comparison with goals and objectives specified in a strategy and plan of a scientific and technological provider by using the strength – weakness comparison system;
4. Weight factor of a criterion refers to a factor indicating the level of importance of a single criterion (a set of criteria) compared to the other;
5. Assessing body refers to an organization with appropriate tasks and functions that is assigned to carry out assessment of performance and service quality of public scientific and technological service providers.
Article 4. Assessment principles, frequency and funding
1. Entities and persons tasked with carrying out assessment must be responsible for accuracy, objectivity and timeliness of assessments.
2. Assessment can be carried out simultaneously or separately with respect to each object of assessment, including performance or quality of services of a public scientific and technological service provider.
3. Assessment must be carried out every 5 years or upon the request of any competent authority in order to support state management and must be conducted by bodies having tasks and functions of assessment of science and technology that are appointed and decided by the Ministry of Science and Technology.
4. Assessments shall be funded by the state budget’s expenditures on public science and technology services and other legitimate capital that are disbursed to qualified assessing bodies. Final settlement and accounts of assessment-related costs shall be subject to laws.
ASSESSMENT OF PERFORMANCE OF PUBLIC SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL SERVICE PROVIDERS
Article 5. Assessment criteria
Assessment of performance of a public scientific and technological service provider must rely on regulations regarding the following sets of criteria:
1. 1st set of criteria – Assessment of developmental orientation and operational plan of a service provider, including two criteria specified under instructions given in section 1 of Appendix 1a hereto:
a) Criterion 1. Transparency, adequacy and level of relevance of developmental orientation and operational plan in comparison to the status, functions and tasks of a service provider;
b) Criterion 2. Feasibility and level of relevance of developmental orientation and operational plan of a service provider to international trends and national or local strategies related to that service provider’s scope of operation.
2. 2nd set of criteria – Assessment of human resource of a service provider, including two criteria specified under instructions given in section 2 of Appendix 1a hereto:
a) Criterion 3. Appropriate and stable structure of operations officers ensuring that all operations of a service provider are matched with its tasks and functions;
b) Criterion 4. A service provider’s officers qualified to meet requirements set out in its developmental orientation and operational plan.
3. 3rd set of criteria – Assessment of equipment and facilities of a service provider, including three criteria specified under instructions given in section 2 of Appendix 1a hereto:
a) Criterion 5. Level of satisfaction (in terms of quantity and quality) of equipment necessary for services that a service provider can render within its predetermined duties and functions;
b) Criterion 6. Level of rationality in terms of use of, coordination in and sharing of equipment necessary for a service provider to render its services;
c) Criterion 7. Level of satisfaction in terms of basic amenities, including spaces intended for laboratories, offices, office equipment, information technology application, security, safety, hygiene and other accommodations.
4. 4th set of criteria – Assessment of sources of funding of a service provider, including three criteria specified under instructions given in section 4 of Appendix 1a hereto:
a) Criterion 8. Level of diversity and growth of sources of funding for operations of a service provider (including funding from the state budget, enterprises and other domestic and international sources);
b) Criterion 9. Level of growth of sources of funding from application of scientific research findings and technological advances, and provision of scientific and technological services;
c) Criterion 10. Level of a service provider’s reinvestment funded from non-budgetary capital for development of its human resource, facilities and equipment.
5. 5th set of criteria – Assessment of administration of business of a service provider, including four criteria specified under instructions given in section 5 of Appendix 1a hereto:
a) Criterion 11. Level of logical coordination between departments as part of the organizational structure of a service provider;
b) Criterion 12. Level of dissemination of information to officers of a service provider (in terms of its business strategy and plan; support for access to different sources of materials and information concerning scientific and technological services falling within its scope of operation, etc.);
c) Criterion 13. Level of effort to communicate and inform products, services and business outcomes of a service provider to potential partners;
d) Criterion 14. Promotion of business cooperation with other domestic and foreign organizations.
6. 6th set of criteria – Assessment of publication capacity and releases of a service provider, including two criteria specified under instructions given in section 6 of Appendix 1a hereto:
a) Criterion 15. Release of domestic scientific publications;
b) Criterion 16. Release of international scientific publications.
7. 7th set of criteria – Assessment of technological development capacity and technology deployments of a service provider, including two criteria specified under instructions given in section 7 of Appendix 1a hereto:
a) Criterion 17. Successful development of innovative and valuable technologies;
b) Criterion 18. Successful integration of innovative and valuable technologies into business administration and production.
8. 8th set of criteria – Assessment of scientific and technological service training and provision capacity and output, including two criteria specified under instructions given in section 8 of Appendix 1a hereto:
a) Criterion 19. Scientific and technological service staff training capacity and output;
b) Criterion 20. Scientific and technological service provision capacity and outcomes.
Public scientific and technological service providers can be assessed by employing both qualitative and quantitative methods as follows:
1. Qualitative assessment is designed to describe and characterize a target subject, analyze strengths, weaknesses and give recommendations for improvement of performance of a scientific and technological service provider. Assessment experts may give qualitative assessment opinions according to specific criteria in order to support quantitative assessments;
2. Quantitative assessment is designed to determine points based on weight factors, levels of assessment and give scores according to specific criteria and sets of criteria;
3. A weight factor value of at least 0% that is relevant to a set of criteria and a single criterion belonging to each set of criteria depends on characteristics of main services of the target subject. These characteristics comprise: research functions, tasks and types (e.g. basic, applied and development researches), specialties belong in research disciplines (e.g. natural science; engineering and technological science; pharmaceutical and medical science; agricultural science; social science; humanities), and other specific characteristics;
4. Total value of weight factors of all sets of criteria is 100%. The weight factor of each set of criteria (Tn) is determined to the extent that it is relevant and conforms to the following principles:
a) The weight factor of the 1st set of criteria prescribed in clause 1 of Article 5 herein is 10%;
b) Total weight factor of the 2nd set of criteria through the 5th set of criteria prescribed in clause 2 through clause 5 of Article 5 herein is 50%;
c) Total weight factor of the 6th set of criteria through the 8th set of criteria prescribed in clause 6 through clause 8 of Article 5 herein is 40%;
5. Determination of assessment points
a) Assessment expert classifies the levels attained in each criterion (Mi) according to 5 ranks, including poor, average, fair, good and excellent, corresponding to points such as 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively. The assessment expert also gives detailed description of specific ranks in each criterion of assessment carried out according to instructions given in Appendix 1a hereto.
b) Assessment point (Đi) in each criterion may be determined by multiplying the rank (Mi) by the weight factor of that criterion (Ti):
Đi = Mi x Ti
6. Total score can be calculated according to the following formulas:
a) The score of each set of criteria (Đn) is total point of criteria (Đj) existing in a set of criteria:
Đn = 
Where: j denotes the number of criteria in each set;
b) Final score of a service provider subject to assessment (Đt) is total point of the entire 8 sets of criteria (Đn) multiplied by the respective weight factor of each set (Tn):
7. Ranking of a service provider based on the final score
a) It will be ranked EXCELLENT if its total final score (Đt) equals at least 4.5 and none of criteria is scored under 4.
b) It will be ranked GOOD if its total final score (Đt) equals from 3.5 to less than 4.5 and none of criteria is scored under 3.
c) It will be ranked FAIR if its total final score (Đt) equals from 2.5 to less than 3.5 and none of criteria is scored under 2.
b) It will be ranked AVERAGE if its total final score (Đt) equals from 1.5 to less than 2.5 and none of criteria is scored under 1.
dd) It will be ranked POOR if its total final score (Đt) equals under 1.5.
e) A service provider may be dropped to the next lower place in the ranking if there is any criterion failing to get the prescribed minimum point of each rank.
1. Taking the pre-assessment preparatory step
a) Assessing body prepares and submits an assessment plan to a competent authority (a procuring entity) to seek its approval.
b) After receipt of approval of the assessment plan, the assessing body informs the assessee to ask for their cooperation and provision of information required for assessment.
c) The assessee prepares initial assessment documents and submits it to the assessing body at least 30 days before the commencement date.
d) Such documents include a review report on performance of the assessee, information sheet and other materials, enclosing the sample information sheet used for providing information about performance of the assessee, as referred to in Appendix 1b hereto.
2. Establishing an Assessment Expert Group
After considering such assessment documents, the assessing body can select experts qualified to join the Assessment Expert Group composed of 3 or 5 members depending on the scale and particular characteristics of each Group.
3. Determining the weight factor: The assessing body and the Assessment Expert Group agree to decide on a weight factor of each criterion or set of criteria, and write it in the assessment form and the score sheet by using their samples No. 1.1, No. 1.2 in Appendix 1c hereto.
4. Carrying out assessment: The assessing body collaborates with the Assessment Expert Group in conducting an assessment according to criteria and methods specified in Article 5 and 6 herein. The assessment shall be carried out as follows:
a) The assessing body develops a report on analysis of data and information about performance of an assessee according to indicators in each criterion, and identifies data and information that need to be collected or updated in order to integrate them into assessment documentation provided to experts;
b) On-site assessment: Experts study assessment documentation, make an interview or discussion with key leaders or officers of the assessee, and conduct a survey on the assessee’s facilities in order to gain adequate data and information to reach conclusion. The on-site assessment report is integrated into assessment documentation;
c) Document-based assessment: Each member of the Assessment Expert Group studies assessment documentation, records his/her opinions or judgments in the Assessment Form by using the Form No. 1.1 in Appendix 1c hereto.
- The assessing body synthesizes assessment results and records them in the General Report on assessment results according to the Form No. 1.2 in Appendix 1c hereto.
- If ranks in a criterion determined by experts of the Assessment Expert Group are different to the extent of more than 1 place, the Group must discuss and re-assess that criterion;
5. Making a review report on assessment results: The review report must be confirmed by the Group and the assessing body. Such report shall be made in the following manner:
a) Based on the assessment form and the general report on assessment results of the Group, the assessing body drafts the assessment report according to the Form No. 1.3 in Appendix 1c hereto;
b) The Group and the assessing body ratify, complete and take responsibility for accuracy of the assessment report in accordance with laws.
6. The assessing body sends an assessment report to the procuring entity to seek its approval.
7. Granting approval of assessment results: Within 30 days after receipt of the assessment report, the procuring entity shall be responsible for considering approval of the assessment report.
ASSESSMENT OF SERVICE QUALITY OF PUBLIC SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL SERVICE PROVIDERS
Article 8. Assessment criteria
Assessment of service quality of a public scientific and technological service provider must conform to regulations regarding the following sets of criteria:
1. 1st set of criteria – Assessment of service provision capacity of a service provider, including two criteria specified under instructions given in section 1 of Appendix 2a hereto:
a) Criterion 1. Level of satisfaction in terms of the service structure compared to its tasks and functions;
b) Criterion 2. Service provision experience.
2. 2nd set of criteria – Assessment of compliance with service regulations of a service provider, including two criteria specified under instructions given in section 2 of Appendix 2a hereto:
a) Criterion 3. Level of compliance with service provision principles and procedures;
b) Criterion 4. Level of development and compliance with technical regulations.
3. 3rd set of criteria – Assessment of service provision rationality of a service provider, including three criteria specified under instructions given in section 3 of Appendix 2a hereto:
a) Criterion 5. Level of rationality of service provision procedures;
b) Criterion 6. Level of facilitation in terms of cooperation between service-guaranteeing resources;
c) Criterion 7. Level of rationality in terms of contacts with clients.
4. 4th set of criteria – Assessment of service-guaranteeing resources of a service provider, including two criteria specified under instructions given in section 4 of Appendix 2a hereto:
a) Criterion 8. Level of satisfaction in terms of engineering and technological infrastructure, facilities and means supporting service provision;
b) Criterion 9. Level of satisfaction with regard to human resources supporting service provision.
5. 5th set of criteria – Assessment of results and impacts, including three criteria specified under instructions given in section 5 of Appendix 2a hereto:
a) Criterion 10. Provision of services under commitments;
b) Criterion 11. Level of client’s trust in a service provider;
c) Criterion 12. Level of growth in clientele receiving or having access to services.
The assessment of service quality of a public scientific and technological service provider shall be conducted according to the grading method under which each criterion or each set of criteria gets points that are then totaled as the final score.
Determination of points of each criterion or set of criteria and totaling of these points into the final score according to the 5-point grading system, including poor, average, fair, good and excellent grades corresponding to such points as 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively, shall be subject to the following specific regulations:
1. An expert determines the level attained in each criterion according the 5-point grading system (including poor, average, fair, good and excellent corresponding to such points as 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively) as provided in Appendix 2a (comprising assessment bases, indicators and description of assessment grades) hereto;
2. Score of each criterion is calculated by the arithmetic mean of points of criteria in the set;
3. Final score of service quality of a service provider is calculated by the arithmetic mean of points of sets of criteria;
4. Service quality is graded according to the 5-point grading system as follows:
a) It will be ranked EXCELLENT if its total point equals at least 4.5 and none of criteria is scored under 4;
b) It will be ranked GOOD if its total point equals from 3.5 to less than 4.5 and none of criteria is scored under 3;
c) It will be ranked FAIR if its total point equals from 2.5 to less than 3.5 and none of criteria is scored under 2;
d) It will be ranked AVERAGE if its total point equals from 1.5 to less than 2.5 and none of criteria is scored under 1.
dd) It will be ranked POOR if its total point equals less than 1.5;
e) Service quality of a service provider referred to subparagraphs a, b, c and d may be dropped to the next lower place in the grading system if there is any criterion failing to get the prescribed minimum point of each grade.
1. Taking the pre-assessment preparatory step
a) Assessing body prepares and submits an assessment plan to a procuring entity to seek its approval.
b) After receipt of approval of the assessment plan, the assessing body informs the assessee to ask for their cooperation and provision of information required for assessment;
c) The assessee prepares initial assessment documents and submits them to the assessing body at least 30 days before the commencement date;
d) Such initial assessment documents, including a review report on services, information sheet and other attached documents, are subject to regulations of Appendix 2b hereto.
2. After considering initial assessment documents, the assessing body plans and conduct surveys to collect information from clients and other related persons (including study on materials, interview questionnaire and face-to-face interview) in order to gain sufficient data and information according to assessment indicators and bases prescribed in Appendix 2a hereto.
3. Establishing an Assessment Expert Group, after considering initial assessment documents, the assessing body can set assessment criteria and select experts qualified to join the Group composed of 3, 5 or 7 members, depending on the scale and particular characteristics of the assessee.
4. Carrying out assessment: The assessing body collaborates with the Assessment Expert Group in conducting an assessment according to assessment criteria and methods specified in Article 8 and 9 herein. The assessment shall be carried out as follows:
a) The assessing body develops a report on analysis of data and information about service quality of the assessee according to indicators in each criterion, and identifies data and information that need to be collected or updated in order to integrate them into assessment documentation provided to experts;
b) On-site assessment: Experts study assessment documentation and work with the assessing body to carry out the on-site assessment.
At service premises of a service provider and/or several service beneficiaries, representatives of the Group and the assessing body conduct interviews and surveys on their facilities, and learn about necessary related information in order to gain sufficient data and information before reaching assessment conclusion. The on-site assessment report is integrated into assessment documentation.
c) Document-based assessment: Each member of the Assessment Expert Group studies final assessment documentation, records his/her opinions or judgments in the Assessment Form by using the Form No. 2.1 in Appendix 2c hereto;
The assessing body synthesizes assessment results and records them in the General Report on assessment results according to the Form No. 2.2 in Appendix 2c hereto;
If ranks in a criterion determined by experts of the Assessment Expert Group are different to the extent of more than 1 (one) place, the Group must discuss and re-assess that criterion.
5. Making a review report on assessment results: The review report must be ratified by the Group and the assessing body. Such report shall be made in the following manner:
a) Based on the assessment form and the general report on assessment results of the Group, the assessing body drafts the assessment report according to the Form No. 2.3 in Appendix 2c hereto;
b) The Group and the assessing body ratify, complete and take responsibility for accuracy of the assessment report in accordance with laws.
6. The assessing body sends an assessment report to the procuring entity to seek its approval.
7. Granting approval of assessment results: Within 30 days after receipt of the assessment report, the competent authority shall be responsible for considering approval of the assessment report.
This Circular shall enter into force on February 10, 2020.
The Circular No. 38/2014/TT-BKHCN dated December 16, 2014 of the Minister of Science and Technology, prescribing assessment of science and technology organizations, shall be abolished from the entry into force of this Circular.
Article 12. Transitional provisions
If assessing bodies, public scientific and technology service providers and other related entities or persons are carrying out assessments in accordance with the Circular No. 38/2014/TT-BKHCN before the entry into force of this Circular, they could continue to do so under the provisions of the Circular No. 38/2014/TT-BKHCN.
Article 13. Implementation responsibilities
1. Vietnam Center for Science and Technology Evaluation, subordinate to the Ministry of Science and Technology, shall draw up general assessment plans for those entities specified herein.
2. Vietnam Center for Science and Technology Evaluation shall be responsible for providing training courses for assessment experts in accordance with regulations laid down herein.
Article 14. Enforcement provisions
1. In the course of implementation of this Circular, if there is any difficulty or query that arises, entities and persons involved must send timely feedbacks to the Ministry of Science and Technology to ask for its guidelines or necessary amendments or modifications.
2. Ministers, Heads of Ministry-level agencies, Heads of Governmental bodies, and Chairpersons of People’s Committees of centrally-affiliated cities and provinces, shall take charge of enforcing this Circular./.
|
| PP. MINISTER |
- 1 Decree No. 16/2015/ND-CP dated February 14, 2015, stipulating the mechanism for exercising the autonomy of Public Administrative units
- 2 Decree No. 08/2014/ND-CP dated January 27, 2014, guiding the implementation of a number of Articles of the Law on Science and Technology
- 3 Law No. 29/2013/QH13 dated June 18, 2013, science and technology