IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v32y2009i3p300-309.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating knowledge benefits of automotive lightweighting materials R&D projects

Author

Listed:
  • Peretz, Jean H.
  • Das, Sujit
  • Tonn, Bruce E.

Abstract

This paper presents a set of metrics used to evaluate short-run knowledge benefits that accrued from research and development (R&D) projects funded in fiscal years 2000-2004 by automotive lightweighting materials (ALM) of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Although DOE presents to Congress energy, environmental, and security benefits and costs of its R&D efforts under the Government Performance and Results Act, DOE has yet to include knowledge benefits in that report [U.S. Department of Energy. (2007). Projected benefits of federal energy efficiency and renewable energy programs: FY2008 budget request. NREL/TP-640-41347 (March). Washington, DC: National Renewable Energy Laboratory for DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Retrieved February 12, 2007 from http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ba/pba/2008_benefits.html]. ALM focuses on development and validation of advanced technologies that significantly reduce automotive vehicle body and chassis weight without compromising other attributes such as safety, performance, recyclability, and cost [U.S. Department of Energy. (2005a). Automotive lightweighting materials 2004 annual progress report. Washington, DC: DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Retrieved March 30, 2005 from http://www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/resources/fcvt_alm_fy04.shtml]. The ultimate goal of ALM to have lightweighter materials in vehicles hinges on many issues, including the (1) collaborative nature of ALMs R&D with the automobile industry and (2) manufacturing knowledge gained through the R&D effort. The ALM projects evaluated in this paper yielded numerous knowledge benefits in the short run. While these knowledge benefits are impressive, there remains uncertainty about whether the research will lead to incorporation of lightweight materials by the Big Three automakers into their manufacturing process and introduction of lightweight vehicles into the marketplace. The uncertainty illustrates a difference between (1) knowledge benefits and (2) energy, environmental, and security benefits emanating from R&D.

Suggested Citation

  • Peretz, Jean H. & Das, Sujit & Tonn, Bruce E., 2009. "Evaluating knowledge benefits of automotive lightweighting materials R&D projects," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 300-309, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:32:y:2009:i:3:p:300-309
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149-7189(09)00016-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bozeman, Barry & Klein, Hans K., 1999. "The case study as research heuristic: lessons from the R&D value mapping project," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 91-103.
    2. Logsdon, John M. & Rubin, Claire B., 1988. "Research evaluation activities of ten federal agencies," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 1-11, January.
    3. Stephen F. Hamilton & David Sunding, 1998. "Returns to Public Investments in Agriculture with Imperfect Downstream Competition," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(4), pages 830-838.
    4. J David Roessner, 2002. "Outcome measurement in the USA: state of the art," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 85-93, August.
    5. Corley, Elizabeth A., 2007. "A use-and-transformation model for evaluating public R&D: Illustrations from polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) research," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 21-35, February.
    6. Schwartz, Robert & Mayne, John, 2005. "Assuring the quality of evaluative information: theory and practice," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 1-14.
    7. Kenneth M. Brown, 1998. "Downsizing Science: Will the United States Pay a Price?," Books, American Enterprise Institute, number 53453, September.
    8. Griliches, Zvi, 1998. "R&D and Productivity," National Bureau of Economic Research Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226308869, December.
    9. Papadakis, Maria & Link, Albert N., 1997. "Measuring the unmeasurable: Cost-benefit analysis for new business start-ups and scientific research transfers," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 91-102, February.
    10. Barry Bozeman & Juan Rogers, 2001. "Strategic Management of Government-Sponsored R&D Portfolios," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 19(3), pages 413-442, June.
    11. Geisler, E., 1995. "An integrated cost-performance model of research and development evaluation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 281-294, June.
    12. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number gril98-1, March.
    13. McLaughlin, John A. & Jordan, Gretchen B., 1999. "Logic models: a tool for telling your programs performance story," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 65-72.
    14. Alston, Julian M. & Beach, E. Douglas, 1996. "Market distortions and the benefits from research into new uses for agricultural commodities: Ethanol from corn," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 1-29, March.
    15. Bozeman, Barry & Corley, Elizabeth, 2004. "Scientists' collaboration strategies: implications for scientific and technical human capital," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 599-616, May.
    16. Sujit Das & Bruce E Tonn & Jean H Peretz, 2008. "Application of economic evaluation techniques to automotive lightweighting materials research and development projects," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(2), pages 133-148, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Celalettin Yuce & Fatih Karpat & Nurettin Yavuz & Gökhan Sendeniz, 2014. "A Case Study: Designing for Sustainability and Reliability in an Automotive Seat Structure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(7), pages 1-24, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Maroto Sánchez, Andrés & Rubalcaba Bermejo, Luis & Gallego Martinez, Jorge, 2016. "On the role of publicly funded R&D for public sector performance," Working Papers in Economic Theory 2016/02, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain), Department of Economic Analysis (Economic Theory and Economic History).
    2. Valeria Costantini & Francesco Crespi & Giovanni Marin & Elena Paglialunga, 2016. "Eco-innovation, sustainable supply chains and environmental performance in European industries," LEM Papers Series 2016/19, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    3. Kumar, Sanjesh & Singh, Baljeet, 2019. "Barriers to the international diffusion of technological innovations," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 74-86.
    4. Georgios Gioldasis & Antonio Musolesi & Michel Simioni, 2020. "Model uncertainty, nonlinearities and out-of-sample comparison: evidence from international technology diffusion," Working Papers hal-02790523, HAL.
    5. Ayhan, Fatih & Elal, Onuray, 2023. "The IMPACTS of technological change on employment: Evidence from OECD countries with panel data analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    6. Cassiman, Bruno & Perez-Castrillo, David & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2002. "Endogenizing know-how flows through the nature of R&D investments," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 775-799, June.
    7. Ufuk Akcigit & Douglas Hanley & Stefanie Stantcheva, 2022. "Optimal Taxation and R&D Policies," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(2), pages 645-684, March.
    8. Duk Hee Lee & Il Won Seo & Ho Chull Choe & Hee Dae Kim, 2012. "Collaboration network patterns and research performance: the case of Korean public research institutions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 925-942, June.
    9. Thomas Bolli & Martin Woerter, 2013. "Technological Diversification and Innovation Performance," KOF Working papers 13-336, KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich.
    10. Link, Albert N. & Siegel, Donald S. & Van Fleet, David D., 2011. "Public science and public innovation: Assessing the relationship between patenting at U.S. National Laboratories and the Bayh-Dole Act," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 1094-1099, October.
    11. Pietro Moncada-Paternò-Castello, 2022. "Top R&D investors, structural change and the R&D growth performance of young and old firms," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 12(1), pages 1-33, March.
    12. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/941 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Beatriz Pereira Almeida & Eduardo Gonçalves & André Suriane Silva & Raquel Coelho Reis, 2021. "Internalization of knowledge spillovers by regions: a measure based on self-citation patents," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 66(2), pages 309-330, April.
    14. Antonelli, Cristiano, 2017. "Digital knowledge generation and the appropriability trade-off," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 991-1002.
    15. Sarah Guillou, 2006. "Competitiveness and export market shares in high tech industries in the US and the EMU countries: a comparative study," Documents de Travail de l'OFCE 2006-18, Observatoire Francais des Conjonctures Economiques (OFCE).
    16. Ramesh Chandra Das & Sujata Mukherjee, 2020. "Do Spending on R&D Influence Income? An Enquiry on the World’s Leading Economies and Groups," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 11(4), pages 1295-1315, December.
    17. Soumyananda Dinda, 2018. "Production technology and carbon emission: long-run relation with short-run dynamics," Journal of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(1), pages 106-121, January.
    18. Stavins, Robert & Jaffe, Adam & Newell, Richard, 2000. "Technological Change and the Environment," Working Paper Series rwp00-002, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    19. Tan, Yafei & Zhu, Zhaohui, 2022. "The effect of ESG rating events on corporate green innovation in China: The mediating role of financial constraints and managers' environmental awareness," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    20. Hana Kim & Eungdo Kim, 2018. "How an Open Innovation Strategy for Commercialization Affects the Firm Performance of Korean Healthcare IT SMEs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-14, July.
    21. Criscuolo, Chiara & Mariagrazia, Squicciarini & Olavi, Lehtoranta, 2010. "R&D, innovation and productivity, and the CIS: sampling, specification and comparability issues," MPRA Paper 39261, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:32:y:2009:i:3:p:300-309. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.