Application of a Comprehensive Methodology for the Evaluation of Social Innovations in Rural Communities

: Despite the growing interest in social innovation (SI) in agriculture, the literature lacks validated tools for evaluating such initiatives. This paper provides an empirical application of the evaluation approach developed within the H2020 SIMRA project to a pilot experience conducted in a rural area of Southern Italy. The value added by this case study is the application of the ﬁve types of criteria used by the OECD for the evaluation of development programs, which are commonly referred to as REEIS: relevance, effectiveness, efﬁciency, impact, and sustainability. This experiment demonstrates the adequacy of the evaluation framework in identifying strengths and weaknesses of the initiative, according to a multifaceted perspective. The overall evaluation proves that most indicators fall under the high (48%) and medium categories (36%), and only few indicators are low (16%). The usefulness of the evaluation results is manifold. First, this evaluation highlights relevant arguments to support the communication strategy addressed at civil society, therefore reinforcing the civic engagement of the initiative, which is the distinctive feature of SI. Second, it supports project managers in addressing interventions to face emerging weaknesses. Finally, the evaluation provides factual evidence to policy makers to perform cost-effective analysis of rural development policies. format”, standing for 20 dinners, 20 hosting farms, 20 guest young farmers. The target was to achieve an overall participation in informal dinners of 400 young farmers, debating about agriculture and sharing their life experiences, projects, and knowledge of agriculture. Contadinner was meant to cause positive changes in attitudes and networks of community.


Introduction
Agricultural activities are one of the main economic and social drivers of rural areas in Europe [1]. They provide essential business and employment opportunities for the vast majority of the rural population, playing a major role in local economies. This is especially true for economically marginalized and peripherally remote areas, where agriculture is one of the last remaining activities to contrast depopulation and brain drain. In an interconnected and changing world, traditional and rural agricultural economies are asked to reconfigure themselves, embracing innovation [2]. Innovation is an essential disruptive process, enabling farmers to generate value (through new products and services) in newly transformed economic systems, strengthening the links between rural and urban markets. In rural areas, bottom-up approaches are suitable to encourage the engagement of the local community, in order to tackle local and specific problems (e.g., depopulation, aging population, land abandonment, etc.) [3]. Initiatives based on the engagement of the civic society fall under the common umbrella of social innovation (SI). Murray et al. [4] defines SI as " . . . new ideas (products, services and models) that simultaneously meet social needs (more effectively than alternatives) and create new social relationships or collaborations. . . . they are innovations that are both good for society and enhance society's capacity to act. The interest is in innovations that are social both in their ends and in their means". Due to the emerging importance of SI as a promising paradigm to challenge local needs of rural the province of Foggia was 27.7%, which is far higher than the Italian national average of 14.1%. According to the quality of life ranking, elaborated by the economic magazine "Il Sole 24 ore" in 2019, Foggia ranked 105 out of 107 provinces (dropping down the rankings since 2014). Another critical issue is represented by the per capita public expenditure which, in the Mezzogiorno area, is 20.2% lower than in northern Italian regions [17]. This implies low quality of services for firms and a low quality of life for citizens. Private firms operate in difficult conditions, negatively affecting their competitiveness, both in domestic and foreign markets. In demographic terms, the province of Foggia comprises 61 municipalities, with a total population of 616,310 inhabitants and a total area of 7008 km 2 (Figure 1). The mean population density is 87.95 inhabitants/km 2 (end of 2019). Foggia is the Italian province endowed with the highest extent of arable land in Italy (495,111 hectares). Among the main problems for agricultural development is the lack of entrepreneurship; in fact, farmers are aged and with low levels of education (70% of them did not finish compulsory education), while young entrepreneurs run only 4% of the farms.
province of Foggia is defined by a NUTS 3 level, located in the macroarea of "Mezzogiorno", in Southern Italy. This is a convergence region with a GDP per inhabitant of less than 75% of the European Union average. The average provincial income is Eur 14,998 [15] per capita, compared to the EU mean of Eur 27,980 (for the year 2019) [16]. According to the Italian National Institute of Statistics (ISTAT), the youth unemployment rate (age 25-34) in 2019 in the province of Foggia was 27.7%, which is far higher than the Italian national average of 14.1%. According to the quality of life ranking, elaborated by the economic magazine "Il Sole 24 ore" in 2019, Foggia ranked 105 out of 107 provinces (dropping down the rankings since 2014). Another critical issue is represented by the per capita public expenditure which, in the Mezzogiorno area, is 20.2% lower than in northern Italian regions [17]. This implies low quality of services for firms and a low quality of life for citizens. Private firms operate in difficult conditions, negatively affecting their competitiveness, both in domestic and foreign markets. In demographic terms, the province of Foggia comprises 61 municipalities, with a total population of 616,310 inhabitants and a total area of 7008 km 2 (Figure 1). The mean population density is 87.95 inhabitants/km 2 (end of 2019). Foggia is the Italian province endowed with the highest extent of arable land in Italy (495,111 hectares). Among the main problems for agricultural development is the lack of entrepreneurship; in fact, farmers are aged and with low levels of education (70% of them did not finish compulsory education), while young entrepreneurs run only 4% of the farms. The storyline of the rural hub development is shown in Figure 2, where the most important events that represented decisive moments for the birth, development, and implementation of the process are reported. The rural hub was formerly conceived during a meeting in October 2009 between the members of the group of founders, under the charismatic guidance of an old and very active priest, whose reputation was widely recognized in the province. The rural hub was officially founded in 2014 and aimed at responding to the needs and disadvantages of young people and their lack of hope towards the future. The first activity promoted by the rural hub, called Oliday, took place in 2014 and consisted of a harvesting event devoted to olive picking at a local farm, a typical farming activity performed in autumn that is well rooted in the local culture. This event involved The storyline of the rural hub development is shown in Figure 2, where the most important events that represented decisive moments for the birth, development, and implementation of the process are reported. The rural hub was formerly conceived during a meeting in October 2009 between the members of the group of founders, under the charismatic guidance of an old and very active priest, whose reputation was widely recognized in the province. The rural hub was officially founded in 2014 and aimed at responding to the needs and disadvantages of young people and their lack of hope towards the future. The first activity promoted by the rural hub, called Oliday, took place in 2014 and consisted of a harvesting event devoted to olive picking at a local farm, a typical farming activity performed in autumn that is well rooted in the local culture. This event involved about 30 young non-farmers who were acquainted with the founders. At the same time, the founders, supported by some initial followers, established a formal association in order to register the denomination of the group, which was named "VàZapp'" [12]. From November 2014 to December 2015, the founders and the followers organized a series of four events at different local farms, paving the way to the main SI initiative called Contadinner. The first event was organized in December 2015 and involved 20 young farmers of the province of Foggia. This activity was propaedeutic to the organization of a cycle of 20 identical events to be held all over the province. In fact, the catchphrase used to promote the events was "20-20-20 format", standing for 20 dinners, 20 hosting farms, 20 guest young farmers. The target was to achieve an overall participation in informal dinners of 400 young farmers, debating about agriculture and sharing their life experiences, projects, and knowledge of agriculture. Contadinner was meant to cause positive changes in attitudes and networks of community. the founders, supported by some initial followers, established a formal association in order to register the denomination of the group, which was named "VàZapp'" [12]. From November 2014 to December 2015, the founders and the followers organized a series of four events at different local farms, paving the way to the main SI initiative called Contadinner. The first event was organized in December 2015 and involved 20 young farmers of the province of Foggia. This activity was propaedeutic to the organization of a cycle of 20 identical events to be held all over the province. In fact, the catchphrase used to promote the events was "20-20-20 format", standing for 20 dinners, 20 hosting farms, 20 guest young farmers. The target was to achieve an overall participation in informal dinners of 400 young farmers, debating about agriculture and sharing their life experiences, projects, and knowledge of agriculture. Contadinner was meant to cause positive changes in attitudes and networks of community.

Data Collection and Analysis
The analysis is based on the methodology developed within the SIMRA project, which is extensively described in [9]. We selected a set of 24 indicators covering the five dimensions of REEIS: Relevance: the objectives set up in the SI meet the needs of the territory and of the actors involved; Efficiency: the outputs of the SI have been achieved with few inputs in terms of resources (costs and time); Effectiveness: the outputs achieved satisfy the initial objectives; Impacts: the extent to which the SI initiative has impacts on the environment, the society, the economy, and governance; Sustainability: the extent to which the SI initiative is sustainable, thus measuring the likelihood for the benefits produced to continue to flow after the external funding has ended, with particular reference to their economic and social factors.
In order to perform an evaluation of the SI, two main types of data were collected. The first refers to factual data (e.g., number of final beneficiaries reached, governance improvement, social inclusion). The second refers to a self-assessment done by the people involved in the SI initiative, either in quantitative terms (e.g., cost of the SI process, count of products and services delivered by the SI project, count of new relations created, etc.)

Data Collection and Analysis
The analysis is based on the methodology developed within the SIMRA project, which is extensively described in [9]. We selected a set of 24 indicators covering the five dimensions of REEIS: Relevance: the objectives set up in the SI meet the needs of the territory and of the actors involved; Efficiency: the outputs of the SI have been achieved with few inputs in terms of resources (costs and time); Effectiveness: the outputs achieved satisfy the initial objectives; Impacts: the extent to which the SI initiative has impacts on the environment, the society, the economy, and governance; Sustainability: the extent to which the SI initiative is sustainable, thus measuring the likelihood for the benefits produced to continue to flow after the external funding has ended, with particular reference to their economic and social factors.
In order to perform an evaluation of the SI, two main types of data were collected. The first refers to factual data (e.g., number of final beneficiaries reached, governance improvement, social inclusion). The second refers to a self-assessment done by the people involved in the SI initiative, either in quantitative terms (e.g., cost of the SI process, count of products and services delivered by the SI project, count of new relations created, etc.) or qualitative terms (satisfaction regarding to services provided by the SI initiative). The selected indicators among the REEIS categories are reported in Table 1.  Several tools were adopted to collect different sets of data [18,19]. Most of the information was collected through a series of surveys addressed to different respondents affected by the Contadinner (Table 2): -tool_2: focus group (1 session, 12 participants, 3 h); -tool_3: structured interviews (questionnaires with open and closed questions, addressed to 3 respondents, for a duration of 90 min per interview); -tool_4: questionnaires (semi-structured interview with 26 respondents, 35 min per respondent); -tool_6: questionnaires (interviews with 10 respondents, 30 min per respondent) Table 2. Survey strategy.

Actors Category Category Definition No. of Respondents Tool for Survey
Innovator Key leaders and first drivers of innovation. Innovators are identifiable individuals who had the idea, invented it, discovered it or were attracted to it.
The first to adopt or support the idea of the innovator; they can be co-creators or identify a good idea and identify a practical approach to carry it forward. The calculation method and the extensive description of each selected indicator are reported in Table A1 in the Appendix A.
Data were collected over a 6-month period (April-September 2018), and the survey addressed different categories of actors, such as innovators, followers, transformers, and beneficiaries, as defined by [20]. Data were stored in a common database called OPINIO, which was managed by EURAC (Accademia Europea di Bolzano).

Results
In this section we present the elaboration of the information collected through the different survey tools. Questions have been elaborated according to the scale value defined in the Manual of Evaluations [9]; some adjustments have been introduced in the case of indicators whose upper bound value was infinite. The indicator values have been coded according to tertiles (low, medium, high), depending on their position along their range of performance.
As follows, results are presented according to the REEIS categories (see Tables 3-7). Within the overall group of 40 REEIS indicators developed within the SIMRA evaluation framework, 24 are applicable to our case study (60%), while the remaining 16 indicators (40%) could not be calculated due to the lack of adequate information. The last column of the tables reports the performance of the SI initiative in qualitative terms. Finally, we found an overall synthetic evaluation, by counting the number of indicators for each tertile.
Relevance. The indicators of this category are reported in Table 3. R1: the objectives set by innovators and followers in the early phases of the SI process correspond to about 46% of European societal challenges. They refer mainly to the following challenges: income, jobs, education, sustainable agriculture and food security, and inclusive and innovative societies. Therefore, the project was moderately consistent with the EU aims.
R2: the score of 24% shows that only one quarter of the early needs were met. Though this level is not satisfactory, it is worth mentioning that the innovation is still at an early stage of development.
R3: 44% of the needs expressed by the network members (innovators, followers, transformers, as defined in Table 2) matched with those expressed by the clique (innovators and followers). This matching refers to the following collective needs: (a) restoration of the dignity of local and traditional farmers; (b) providing hope to the young people regarding their personal and professional development along with the agricultural domain. Although the resulting match was moderate, it actually related to the manifesto of the rural hub.
R5: the services provided by the rural hub satisfied existing beneficiaries' needs, with a mean score of 7 out of 10. By achieving this result, the rural hub paved the way for future civil engagement.
R6: about one third of beneficiary needs were addressed by the initiative. In particular, it is worth mentioning two common needs: the creation of new relationships and the enhancement of cooperation with existing local actors (mentioned by 40% of the beneficiaries) and the possibility of exchanging ideas, technical solutions, and cultural proposals (mentioned by 30% of the beneficiaries).
R7: the whole initiative was highly satisfactory (7.3 out of 10) for the involved actors (innovators, followers, transformers, and project partners), as it was capable of meeting the territorial needs.
By considering the overall level of relevance indicators, we found that only one indicator was low (R2), while the remaining ones scored moderately high. In conclusion, the hub is perceived as capable of addressing the majority of beneficiaries' and territorial needs. Efficiency. Table 4 contains the indicators for efficiency, which mainly refer to the economic aspects of the process and the initiative. Different from the manual [9,10], we defined the upper bound range of indicators (E1, E4, E5, E8), which we borrowed from the report regarding the impact of the third sector on Italian economy and society [21]. E1: the total amount of resources invested in the SI process was Eur 18,946, considering personnel (the main component), travel, subsistence, and consumables. This indicated a tiny amount of both monetary and personal resources invested in the project activities. Compared with the national benchmark, this value was very low, implying that the economic efficiency was very high.
E3: the compactness of the network was 0.4, which was a moderate value, considering that when this value is closer to 0, the network is entirely made up of isolates, while when it is closer to 1, the network is a clique and everyone is adjacent.
E4: the cost of the SI project per direct beneficiary was equal to Eur 47.4; compared with the national benchmark, this was moderate, leading to the conclusion that the efficiency was medium.
E5: the total cost of the SI project was equal to Eur 69,170. It should be considered that most of the resources invested were represented by volunteer work. As revealed by the comparison with the national benchmark, this efficiency indicator was considered high.
E8: The unit yearly cost of the initiative per actor involved was Eur 5813, considering both monetary and personnel costs. In this case the upper bound of the national benchmark was represented by the total expenditure of the third sector divided by the total number of employees and volunteers involved. As emerged, the E8 value fell into the medium category, indicating a moderate level of efficiency.
Considering the whole category, we conclude that the initiative exhibited a mediumhigh level of economic and financial efficiency, as two out of five indicators belong to the high category and three to the medium one, while no indicator falls into the low category.  Effectiveness. The indicators of this category are reported in Table 5. F1: the network observed changes (enlargement and strengthening) at about 58% of the expected levels. This result proves a medium level of effectiveness of the innovation process. For instance, among the expected changes, innovators, followers, and transformers mentioned the creation of new networks among farmers and the enhancement of collaboration among them in order to overcome common difficulties and the sharing of new ideas. However, among the achieved changes, they recognized only the realization of the Contadinner experience, some storytelling about agriculture to embellish its image, and the actual attempt of rediscovering the importance of trust in people who were first met, overcoming initial diffidence towards strangers. Therefore, matching was not fully achieved, but it could be considered a good start, considering that the rural hub is still at the early stages of development.
F2: the process was quite effective in the network reconfiguration; in particular, respondents assigned high values to respectively new relationships established, and the improved inclusiveness of the network (7.2 out of 10).
F3: the network was strengthened, proven by a small increase of density (+18%), implying that the collaboration among participants of the network after the organization of the first Contadinner was enhanced.
F5: the overall perception of beneficiaries was high (7.5 out of 10), resulting from the agreeableness of the ambience created during the Contadinner and the informal climate where they could share some moments and thoughts with one another.
F6: results suggest a medium level of beneficiaries satisfaction with the service delivered by the rural hub, which covered about 40% of their initial demand.
F10: the communication channels were not effective, being poorly evaluated by the respondents, with a low score of 27.5%. The reason was that the use of some social media, such as Facebook, reached only about 60% of the target audience, while other traditional media reached only 30% of beneficiaries. Finally, informal channels, such as word of mouth, were moderately effective at 50%. However, it is likely that the audience was not acquainted with the constant and regular use of these media channels. F11: participation in the Contadinner resulted in actors being highly aware (7.9 on a scale of 10) of being part of the innovation process and being able to contribute to its further development. In other words, this indicator measures the civic engagement potential of SI and the feeling of being able to contribute to territorial development. Impact. Since the rural hub is still at the early stages of development, only two indicators were considered as applicable (Table 6).
I6: the initiative reached a relevant number (94.5%) of final beneficiaries, represented by the potential number of acquaintances and relatives of those farmers who started to receive some benefits from the SI initiative.
I10: the initiative positively impacted 62% of items that were investigated during the survey, referring to four domains: environmental, economic, social, and institutional. Sustainability. Sustainability indicators are reported in Table 7. S1: the economic self-sufficiency of the SI process was high, since the large majority (99.8%) of the total resources used to run the rural hub were internal (working time, financial and in-kind contributions on a volunteer basis).
S2: the estimated time horizon of the rural hub was more than 70 years in the future, suggesting an important sustainability of this type of project in the Province of Foggia.
S3: the initiative was perceived to be sustainable, considering that more than two thirds (66.67%) of items were validated by the respondents, most of which were related to social aspects, rather than economic ones. In fact, a main social factor that makes the project more likely to survive is its capacity for the engagement of highly motivated people, who are keen to work voluntarily, e.g., all the clique members worked fully voluntarily in the early phases of the project. In addition, the rural hub proved to challenge the central problem of the community, with the introduction of a new way of thinking and approaching the agricultural sector and its modernization. S5: the financial sustainability was limited to about one year, which is a very short time span considering the complexity of the organization. This indicator proved that, despite the perceived high financial sustainability of the rural hub, which is supported by volunteers, it will not last for more than one year in the case that support is withdrawn. In short, we elaborated a synthetic representation of the results of the whole evaluation by reporting the number of indicators contained in the same tertile for each REEIS criterion (Table 8).  The largest number of indicators fall under the high (45%) and medium categories (38%), while only a few are low (17%). This represents the basis for a comprehensive evaluation of the initiative by comparing the best performing indicators with those that performed as low, in order to identify strengths and weaknesses, as illustrated in the next section.

Discussion
The evaluation exercise highlighted strengths and weaknesses of the SI initiative. As previously mentioned, it is worth noting that the rural hub is still at the early stages of development and, therefore, the value of some indicators was quite modest. This is the case for indicator R2, proving that some adaptation is necessary in the SI in order to meet the social needs. In case of F3, there is a similar explanation, as the reconfiguration of social networks is a process that proceeds at a slow pace; however, it would be desirable that it will continue to develop and to reinforce over time. It should be noted that SIs cannot be considered as "static" processes, but rather dynamic ones, since they should be able to adapt to changes in the social context in the medium term, as well as to the occurrence of extraordinary social events. Therefore, the evaluation exercise concerning this aspect needs to be conducted on a routine basis, providing continuous monitoring.
The evaluation exercise disclosed a crucial issue related to the financial sustainability of the project (indicator S5). In order to be sustainable over time, the SI project cannot fully depend on volunteer work, but requires some capitalization efforts, consisting of consolidation of physical and financial assets as well as a minimum enrollment of personnel endowed with administrative and organization skills. For instance, the establishment of a physical headquarters may reinforce the external visibility and the internal cohesion, strengthening the "sense of belonging" of members and beneficiaries. In addition, there is a need to create a neutral confrontation arena, where every member feels at ease in accessing this safe place and expressing him/herself. To this regard, the role of public support and the collection of membership fees may play a relevant role. This aspect may also explain the scarce effectiveness of the communication channels (F10), which are still oriented at the dissemination of emotional slogans, rather than informing about the achievements of the rural hub. In addition, information may not be adequate in illustrating how new activities are conceived to satisfy the potential beneficiaries. In order to improve this aspect, professional skills and activities undertaken on a continual basis are needed; they require a well-institutionalized organization, endowed with a robust administrative structure and some financial assets.
Despite the importance of identifying the weakness to elaborate some corrective actions, strengths highlighted by the most highly scored indicators reveal that, overall, the SI is performing well. More specifically, each indicator category could be useful to different actors, directly or indirectly involved in the SI initiative. In particular, -relevance: can be useful for the responsibilities regarding public relations for the SI project, to evaluate and finally communicate the capacity of the project to address the needs and satisfaction of beneficiaries; -efficiency: addresses the administration and control of the economic sustainability and financial viability of the SI project; -effectiveness: provides suggestions for project managers performing monitoring and control on specific SI initiatives or actions; -impacts: represents the synthesis of the performance of the SI initiative, to be used to communicate the role of the SI project to ameliorate the socio-economic situation of the community and to provide suggestions for policy measures aimed at fostering public engagement and fundraising; -sustainability: provides the basic orientation for project designers committed to the development, reinforcement, and (eventually) replication of the SI.
However, it is necessary to consider that some indicators, such as those related to impacts, could not be captured in the early stages of SI. In fact, several indicators could not be measured, due the fact that some actions addressed at a social level require a long time span to generate observable changes, as compared to projects aimed at infrastructural improvement and physical investments.
Policy support is fundamental in the early stages of development of SI, when the impacts are still not evident. To this regard, the most reliable evaluation criteria are the other aspects (relevance, effectiveness, sustainability), which may represent the capacity of SI to self-organize and to be capable to proceed on its own. It is important that the SI will not become a provider of public services, nor become a fully volunteer organization, but will find its way on a third path, that is, a stand-alone organization, pursuing the enhancement of the capacity of the civic community to satisfy unmet needs.

Conclusions
The main lesson learned from this case study has potentially strong implications. In fact, even in areas plagued by great socio-economic problems (e.g., severe economic crisis, causing a dramatic increase of youth unemployment rates), emigration is not the only way out; on the contrary, reaction is possible. Certainly, this reaction is not directly operating on the general economic issues affecting the entire country, as this requires operating at a wider scale by means of policy instruments. Instead, the rural hub operates to revert the cultural basis of the countermeasure against the economic measures (traditionally emigration) by creating acceptance for people who decide to stay. The main way to do this is creating and reinforcing a linkage between the rural status and the urban communities by means of social events. In this way the rural hub tackles the root of the problem, which is restoring dignity to local and traditional agriculture as well as the emancipation of young people. This resulted in enthusiasm among young farmers, a capacity for co-working, and eventually, the ability to capture career opportunities for skilled people.
Another major finding of this study is that the conditions for reaction to occur, and the causality between trigger and SI, are not trivial (trigger → social needs → social innovation), but require an actual alignment of specific factors that, in this case, were (i) a long-time accumulation process resulting in needs matching with some personal qualities of the innovators (e.g., strong friendship and spiritual link) as well as their communications and professional skills (i.e., human capital); (ii) a pre-existing network of people (i.e., social capital) and a contextual condition that favored social networking. This enabled the movement to rise spontaneously, without external financial capital, and with the direct involvement of existing human and social capital. To transform, accumulate, and employ these immaterial forms of capital, the rural hub exhibited some level of closure, which allowed for the establishment of specific rules, vision, and governance style (which are the normative and cognitive components of social capital).
Finally, this SI initiative needs to find its way, straddling profit and non-profit domains in producing its outputs, to generate a hybrid model. On one hand, events and relations promotion are produced at the non-profit level. On the other hand, these relations lead to the establishment of professional agreements, which belong to the private sector.  The higher the level of collaboration among the actors during the process compared with the level of collaboration before the process, the better the effectiveness of the SI process. The higher the amount of outputs (products and services) delivered compared to the those initially identified, the better the capacity of the SI project to reach its specific objective/s, and thus its effectiveness. The higher the capacity to reach new beneficiaries, the better its effectiveness. 6 % of effectiveness The more the SI process actors are aware of their capacity to make a difference in the territory through the Social Innovation initiative, the better its supposed effectiveness. The higher the number of indirect beneficiaries, the better the supposed impact of the SI project. 6 Ratio indirect beneficiaries/total beneficiaries I10 (I4 *) Stakeholders' perception of the Social Innovation's general positive impacts on the four domains The higher the percentage of elements positively impacted by the Social Innovation initiative with respect to the total elements impacted, the better the supposed impact of the SI initiative according to the stakeholders' perception 2 % of positive impacts on total impacts S1 (S4 *) Social Innovation project's financial dependence on internal resources The higher the level of dependency of the SI budget on internal resources, the higher the SI project's financial self-sufficiency.
1 & 3 percentage S2 Likelihood of benefits produced by the Social Innovation project to continue to flow in the future The higher the expected years to continue to exist the benefits produced by SI initiative in the future, the better the likelihood of the SI initiative to continue in the future. Source: Indicators are adopted from [9]. Note (*): The indicators whose labels are in parentheses have been coded differently in the new edition of the evaluation manual [10].