IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v63y2017icp18-28.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development of an evaluation framework for publicly funded R&D projects: The case of Korea's Next Generation Network

Author

Listed:
  • Kim, Eungdo
  • Kim, Soyoung
  • Kim, Hongbum

Abstract

For decades, efforts have been made globally to measure the performance of large-scale public projects and to develop a framework to perform such measurements due to the complexity and dynamics of R&D and stakeholder interests. Still, limitations such as the use of a simply modified model and the lack of a comprehensive viewpoint are prevalent in existing approaches. In light of these research gaps, this study suggests a practical model to evaluate the performance of large-scale and publicly funded projects. The proposed model suggests a standard matrix framework of indices that evaluates the performance of particular elements in an industrial ecosystem in vertical categories and the economic and technological outcomes of those elements in horizontal categories. Based on the application of a balanced scorecard, this study uses mixed methodologies such as social network analysis, inter-industry analysis, and the analytic hierarchy process. Finally, the model evaluates the performance of Korea's Next Generation Network project as a case study.

Suggested Citation

  • Kim, Eungdo & Kim, Soyoung & Kim, Hongbum, 2017. "Development of an evaluation framework for publicly funded R&D projects: The case of Korea's Next Generation Network," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 18-28.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:63:y:2017:i:c:p:18-28
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.02.012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718915301105
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.02.012?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Kathryn E. R. Graham & Heidi L. Chorzempa & Pamela A. Valentine & Jacques Magnan, 2012. "Evaluating health research impact: Development and implementation of the Alberta Innovates -- Health Solutions impact framework," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(5), pages 354-367, November.
    2. James Love & Stephen Roper, 1999. "The Determinants of Innovation: R & D, Technology Transfer and Networking Effects," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 15(1), pages 43-64, August.
    3. Martin S. Meyer, 2001. "Patent citation analysis in a novel field of technology:An exploration of nano-science and nano-technology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 51(1), pages 163-183, April.
    4. Haner, Udo-Ernst, 2002. "Innovation quality--a conceptual framework," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 31-37, November.
    5. Melkers, Julia & Roessner, David, 1997. "Politics and the political setting as an influence on evaluation activities: National research and technology policy programs in the United States and Canada," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 57-75, February.
    6. Erik Arnold, 2012. "Understanding long-term impacts of R&D funding: The EU framework programme," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(5), pages 332-343, October.
    7. Sayaka Shishido & Masaru Yamashita & Junichi Yoshida & Mitsuru Takeshita, 2012. "Research on derivative effects created by Japanese national R&D projects," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(5), pages 344-353, October.
    8. Varmazyar, Mohsen & Dehghanbaghi, Maryam & Afkhami, Mehdi, 2016. "A novel hybrid MCDM model for performance evaluation of research and technology organizations based on BSC approach," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 125-140.
    9. Wu, Hung-Yi & Lin, Yi-Kuei & Chang, Chi-Hsiang, 2011. "Performance evaluation of extension education centers in universities based on the balanced scorecard," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 37-50, February.
    10. Ayob, Abu H. & Morell, Jonathan A., 2016. "The historical path of evaluation as reflected in the content of Evaluation and Program Planning," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 20-27.
    11. Kim, Bowon & Oh, Heungshik, 2002. "An effective R&D performance measurement system: survey of Korean R&D researchers," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 19-31, February.
    12. Tang, Hui-Wen Vivian, 2011. "Optimizing an immersion ESL curriculum using analytic hierarchy process," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 343-352, November.
    13. Georghiou, Luke & Roessner, David, 2000. "Evaluating technology programs: tools and methods," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 657-678, April.
    14. Klein, Michael, 1997. "The Risk Premium for Evaluating Public Projects," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 13(4), pages 29-42, Winter.
    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. Klessova, Svetlana & Engell, Sebastian & Thomas, Catherine, 2022. "Assessment of the advancement of market-upstream innovations and of the performance of research and innovation projects," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    2. Alkinoos Psarras & Theodoros Anagnostopoulos & Nikos Tsotsolas & Ioannis Salmon & Lazaros Vryzidis, 2020. "Applying the Balanced Scorecard and Predictive Analytics in the Administration of a European Funding Program," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-15, December.
    3. Svetlana Klessova & Sebastian Engell & Catherine Thomas, 2022. "Assessment of the advancement of market-upstream innovations and of the performance of research and innovation projects," Post-Print hal-03636260, HAL.
    4. Roth Cardoso, Hugo Henrique & Dantas Gonçalves, Adriana & Dambiski Gomes de Carvalho, Gustavo & Gomes de Carvalho, Hélio, 2020. "Evaluating innovation development among Brazilian micro and small businesses in view of management level: Insights from the local innovation agents program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).

    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. Kheybari, Siamak & Rezaie, Fariba Mahdi & Farazmand, Hadis, 2020. "Analytic network process: An overview of applications," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 367(C).
    2. Quezada, Luis E. & López-Ospina, Héctor A. & Ortiz, César & Oddershede, Astrid M. & Palominos, Pedro I. & Jofré, Paulina A., 2022. "A DEMATEL-based method for prioritizing strategic projects using the perspectives of the Balanced Scorecard," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 249(C).
    3. Afrasiabi, Ahmadreza & Chalmardi, Mazyar Kaboli & Balezentis, Tomas, 2022. "A novel hybrid evaluation framework for public organizations based on employees’ performance factors," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    4. Goio Etxebarria & Mikel Gomez-Uranga & Jon Barrutia, 2012. "Tendencies in scientific output on carbon nanotubes and graphene in global centers of excellence for nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(1), pages 253-268, April.
    5. Chin-tsai Lin & Chang-tzu Chiang, 2007. "Evaluating the performance of sponsored Chinese herbal medicine research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(1), pages 67-84, January.
    6. Duan, Yunlong & Liu, Shuling & Cheng, Hao & Chin, Tachia & Luo, Xuan, 2021. "The moderating effect of absorptive capacity on transnational knowledge spillover and the innovation quality of high-tech industries in host countries: Evidence from the Chinese manufacturing industry," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 233(C).
    7. Steven W. Popper & Caroline S. Wagner, 2003. "Identifying critical technologies in the United States: a review of the federal effort," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(2-3), pages 113-128.
    8. R. Karpagam & S. Gopalakrishnan & M. Natarajan & B. Ramesh Babu, 2011. "Mapping of nanoscience and nanotechnology research in India: a scientometric analysis, 1990–2009," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(2), pages 501-522, November.
    9. Salimi, Negin & Rezaei, Jafar, 2018. "Evaluating firms’ R&D performance using best worst method," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 147-155.
    10. Stuart D. Allen & Stephen K. Layson & Albert N. Link, 2013. "Public gains from entrepreneurial research: Inferences about the economic value of public support of the Small Business Innovation Research program," Chapters, in: Public Support of Innovation in Entrepreneurial Firms, chapter 6, pages 105-112, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Roper, Stephen & Hewitt-Dundas, Nola & Love, James H., 2004. "An ex ante evaluation framework for the regional benefits of publicly supported R&D projects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 487-509, April.
    12. Luciana Aparecida Barbieri da Rosa & Clandia Maffini Gomes & Waleska Campos & Carolina Rodrigues & Tais Pentiado Godoy & Jordana Marques Kneipp, 2022. "Influencing Factors of The Innovation Power in the Adoption of Sustainability Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-15, October.
    13. Ebersberger, Bernd & Edler, Jakob & Lo, Vivien, 2006. "Improving policy understanding by means of secondary analyses of policy evaluation: a concept development," Discussion Papers "Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis" 12, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    14. Hans Pohl, 2021. "Internationalisation, innovation, and academic–corporate co-publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1329-1358, February.
    15. Abbas Keramati & Fatemeh Shapouri, 2016. "Multidimensional appraisal of customer relationship management: integrating balanced scorecard and multi criteria decision making approaches," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 217-251, May.
    16. Camelia Mihaela Oane (Marinescu) & Klaudia Smol¹g & Emanuel Stefan Marinescu & Romuald Szopa, 2015. "Value-Based Management As The Innovating Paradigm Of Contemporary Governance – A Theoretical Approach," Polish Journal of Management Studies, Czestochowa Technical University, Department of Management, vol. 12(1), pages 106-120, DEcember.
    17. Justin Doran & Geraldine Ryan, 2016. "The Importance of the Diverse Drivers and Types of Environmental Innovation for Firm Performance," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 102-119, February.
    18. Nathalie Taverdet-Popiolek, 2022. "Economic Footprint of a Large French Research and Technology Organisation in Europe: Deciphering a Simplified Model and Appraising the Results," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 13(1), pages 44-69, March.
    19. Qi-Gan Shao & James J. H. Liou & Sung-Shun Weng & Yen-Ching Chuang, 2018. "Improving the Green Building Evaluation System in China Based on the DANP Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-20, April.
    20. Teasdale, Rebecca M. & Strasser, Mikayla & Moore, Ceily & Graham, Kara E., 2023. "Evaluative criteria in practice: Findings from an analysis of evaluations published in Evaluation and Program Planning," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:63:y:2017:i:c:p:18-28. 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.