IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v196y2009i3p847-855.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative evaluation of performance of national R&D programs with heterogeneous objectives: A DEA approach

Author

Listed:
  • Lee, Hakyeon
  • Park, Yongtae
  • Choi, Hoogon

Abstract

The strategic importance of performance evaluation of national R&D programs is highlighted as the resource allocation draws more attention in R&D policy agenda. Due to the heterogeneity of national R&D programs' objectives, however, it is intractably difficult to relatively evaluate multiple programs and, consequently, few studies have been conducted on the performance comparison of the R&D programs. This study measures and compares the performance of national R&D programs using data envelopment analysis (DEA). Since DEA allows each DMU to choose the optimal weights of inputs and outputs which maximize its efficiency, it can mirror R&D programs' unique characteristics by assigning relatively high weights to the variables in which each program has strength. Every project in every R&D program is evaluated together based on the DEA model for comparison of efficiency among different systems. Kruskal-Wallis test with a post hoc Mann-Whitney U test is then run to compare performance of R&D programs. Two alternative approaches to incorporating the importance of variables, the AR model and output integration, are also introduced. The results are expected to provide policy implications for effectively formulating and implementing national R&D programs.

Suggested Citation

  • Lee, Hakyeon & Park, Yongtae & Choi, Hoogon, 2009. "Comparative evaluation of performance of national R&D programs with heterogeneous objectives: A DEA approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 196(3), pages 847-855, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:196:y:2009:i:3:p:847-855
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377-2217(08)00481-5
    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. Wang, Eric C. & Huang, Weichiao, 2007. "Relative efficiency of R&D activities: A cross-country study accounting for environmental factors in the DEA approach," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 260-273, March.
    2. Kocher, Martin G. & Luptacik, Mikulas & Sutter, Matthias, 2006. "Measuring productivity of research in economics: A cross-country study using DEA," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 314-332, December.
    3. Scherer, F. M., 1983. "The propensity to patent," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 107-128, March.
    4. Laurens Cherchye & Willem Moesen & Nicky Rogge & Tom Puyenbroeck, 2007. "An Introduction to ‘Benefit of the Doubt’ Composite Indicators," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 82(1), pages 111-145, May.
    5. Shang, Jen & Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki, 1995. "A unified framework for the selection of a Flexible Manufacturing System," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 297-315, September.
    6. Nederhof, A. J. & van Raan, A. F. J., 1993. "A bibliometric analysis of six economics research groups: A comparison with peer review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 353-368, August.
    7. Korhonen, Pekka & Tainio, Risto & Wallenius, Jyrki, 2001. "Value efficiency analysis of academic research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(1), pages 121-132, April.
    8. R. D. Banker & A. Charnes & W. W. Cooper, 1984. "Some Models for Estimating Technical and Scale Inefficiencies in Data Envelopment Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(9), pages 1078-1092, September.
    9. Boussofiane, A. & Dyson, R. G. & Thanassoulis, E., 1991. "Applied data envelopment analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 1-15, May.
    10. Thompson, Russell G. & Langemeier, Larry N. & Lee, Chih-Tah & Lee, Euntaik & Thrall, Robert M., 1990. "The role of multiplier bounds in efficiency analysis with application to Kansas farming," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1-2), pages 93-108.
    11. Charnes, A. & Cooper, W. W. & Rhodes, E., 1978. "Measuring the efficiency of decision making units," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 2(6), pages 429-444, November.
    12. Eilat, Harel & Golany, Boaz & Shtub, Avraham, 2006. "Constructing and evaluating balanced portfolios of R&D projects with interactions: A DEA based methodology," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 172(3), pages 1018-1039, August.
    13. Zhang, Anming & Zhang, Yimin & Zhao, Ronald, 2003. "A study of the R&D efficiency and productivity of Chinese firms," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 444-464, September.
    14. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    15. Dan Rosen & Claire Schaffnit & Joseph Paradi, 1998. "Marginal Rates and Two-dimensional Level Curves in DEA," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 205-232, March.
    16. R. Allen & A. Athanassopoulos & R.G. Dyson & E. Thanassoulis, 1997. "Weights restrictions and value judgements in Data Envelopment Analysis: Evolution, development and future directions," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 73(0), pages 13-34, October.
    17. Lee, Mushin & Son, Byoungho & Om, Kiyong, 1996. "Evaluation of national R&D projects in Korea," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 805-818, August.
    18. Takamura, Yoshiharu & Tone, Kaoru, 2003. "A comparative site evaluation study for relocating Japanese government agencies out of Tokyo," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 85-102, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:ejores:v:196:y:2009:i:3:p:847-855. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Haili He). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.