Going back to the aim and objectives of this research, the scope of research has been directed towards examining regional park programmes of urban regeneration origin. Based on previous discussion on the differences between a project and a programme, as well as detail discussion on programme evaluation (in Chapter Two), it was argued that the core evaluation of the case studies will be focused around assessing the programme as a whole and not concentrating on a specific urban regeneration project. This was pointed out due to the fact that project evaluation is not a rare procedure but programme evaluation especially for a regional park is seldom performed whilst benchmarking those programmes has not yet become a standard pursuit. In addition to that, realistic evaluation of a regional park programme has never been undertaken before.
As indicated in previous discussion, the research itself will include two major UK case studies. The decision about the numbers of case studies depends to a large extent on the research objectives and questions as well as the research context. With regard to the selection of the UK case studies, it was proposed that the selection of appropriate cases will be based upon a set of characteristics. The case study selection therefore is made in accordance with the specific needs of this research. However, the benchmarking partner has an extra criterion that needs to meet the key principle to the benchmarking concept: portraying itself as an exemplar. Below are the basic criteria for both; the prime subject and its benchmarking partner (Criteria 1-4 for both cases, while Criterion 5 is targeted for the comparative case study):
1) Programme with urban regeneration initiative as the initial foundation; 2) Feasibility;
3) Long term perspective; 4) Suitability; and
81
(1) Programme with urban regeneration initiative as the initial foundation
As pointed out in Chapter One and during the second part of the thesis (in Chapter Two), the choice of subject for the purpose of testing the benchmarking procedure and realistic evaluation would be of an initiative called the regional park programme. In relation to the issue of the current practice of evaluation for urban regeneration intervention, the case study selection therefore chose regional park programmes which feature urban regeneration efforts as their basis of establishment.
(2) Feasibility
The ‘feasibility’ criterion is also regarded as a fundamental aspect. It essentially indicates that both UK case studies are credible to be examined and evaluated. And by that, feasible simply means accessible, enabling the investigation to be carried out and viable. For that reason, the study requires the existence and access of those involved during the delivery of the programme. It would be impractical if the source of information is no longer available due to unavoidable reasons, for example, changes in management, retired personnel, or potential participants can no longer be contacted. In addition to that, it is crucial that case study selection considers the availability of an adequate amount of information and references of both case studies. Likewise, if cases are best practice but information is scarce due to restricted access or changes in management, or even worse, because an organisation no longer exists, then these would create a major stumbling block for investigation. For this reason, both programmes must have significant number of sources and references. Additionally, the main subject and the benchmarking partner should be accessible in providing the research with a substantial amount of information and documentation with regards to the case study.
(3) Long Term Perspective
The long term perspective criterion signifies the end result of the research and its contribution for future reference. This suggests that the choice of case studies will provide a long term perspective, in the sense that it has the expectation of a lasting lesson for future reference plus realistic enough in terms of producing compelling results applicable to future practice. The outcome of research should be capable of assisting the current scenario yet applicable to a long term vision. It is expected that the outcome of the case study investigations will facilitate the improvement and guidance of current or future urban regeneration programme evaluation. The long term perspective anticipates lasting impact during the process of regional park development but it is not suggested throughout its life-cycle as programmes are influenced by current trends. Also, a regional park tends to take longer to become fully mature. Nevertheless, it is anticipated that the framework produced can be applied for a reasonably long time unless another new method in evaluating regional park programmes is designed, to suit the more complex situation in the future.
82 (4) Suitability
Another important criterion of the case study selection is that the case studies correspond to the main idea of this research which is to evaluate the potential of benchmarking and realistic evaluation in urban regeneration in terms of programme evaluation. The major UK case studies must indicate the validity of the foundation and principles of the benchmarking concept which allow it to be compared. This in turn will enable the application of the benchmarking procedure and also the assessment of the applicability of the benchmarking procedure as a tool for measuring performance in urban regeneration. Needless to say, both case studies are required to be appropriate in terms of suitability for evaluation and assessment. Case studies should represent logical exploration and match for comparison. Therefore, if a case study chosen is embedded within the local context, then a comparison would be practical with another local context. A similar application to this is that, if the case study is of a regional urban regeneration programme, than another regional programme would best match the comparison and evaluation. Conversely, both case studies must demonstrate consistency of type of intervention or category of programme. A good justification for this is to avoid any inconsistency in terms of the level of subject for assessment.
(5) The Benchmarking Partner Depicts the Characteristics of An Exemplar
In this instance, it is worth referring to the basic principle of benchmarking. The essential purpose of benchmarking is to compare a subject/case to another similar subject/case of a better performance. The benchmarking partner should have external recognition and be highly recognised. This is important in the practice of benchmarking which is to look for best practice. It would not be an effective exercise if the comparison is of the same level or acquired the same achievement or results. It is for this motive that the case study for comparison (the benchmarking partner) must portray some elements or prove of a much better accomplishment. And, because this thesis targets to share its outcomes for the betterment and efficacy of future intervention, therefore, the benchmarking partner must demonstrate better performance and merits than other regional parks.