"How to - and How Not to - Evaluate Innovation", by Burt Perrin. This stimulating paper was originally presented at the UK Evaluation Society Conference, London 8th December 2000, and has been accepted for publication in Evaluation. The abstract for the paper reads: "How to - and How Not to - Evaluate Innovation Abstract Many traditional evaluation methods, including most performance measurement ap-proaches, inhibit rather than support actual innovation. This paper discusses the nature of innovation, identifies limitations of traditional evaluation approaches for assessing innova-tion, and proposes an alternative model of evaluation consistent with the nature of innova-tion. Most attempts at innovation, by definition, are risky and should 'fail' - otherwise they are using safe, rather than unknown or truly innovative approaches. A few key impacts by a minority of projects or participants may be much more meaningful than changes in mean (or average) scores. Yet the most common measure of programme impact is the mean. In con-trast, this paper suggests that evaluation of innovation should identify the minority of situa-tions where real impact has occurred and the reasons for this. This is in keeping with the approach venture capitalists typically take where they expect most of their investments to 'fail', but to be compensated by major gains on just a few. " A copy the 14 May 2001 revision of the paper is available here. Abstracts of other papers presented at the conference can also be found at the UKES web site. (Item 102, posted 9/12/00, but re-edited 10/10/2001)