IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v230y2013i3p656-665.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A vague set based decision support approach for evaluating research funding programs

Author

Listed:
  • Wang, Jue
  • Xu, Wei
  • Ma, Jian
  • Wang, Shouyang

Abstract

Scientific Research Assessment (SRA) is receiving increasing attention in both academic and industry. More and more organizations are recognizing the importance of SRA for the optimal use of scarce resources. In this paper, a vague set theory based decision support approach is proposed for SRA. Specifically, a family of parameterized S-OWA operator is developed for the aggregation of vague assessments. The proposed approach is introduced to evaluate the research funding programs of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC). It provides a soft and expansive way to help the decision maker in NSFC to make his decisions. The proposed approach can also be used for some other agencies to make similar assessment.

Suggested Citation

  • Wang, Jue & Xu, Wei & Ma, Jian & Wang, Shouyang, 2013. "A vague set based decision support approach for evaluating research funding programs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 230(3), pages 656-665.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:230:y:2013:i:3:p:656-665
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2013.04.045
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221713003597
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.04.045?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. John R. Moore, Jr. & Norman R. Baker, 1969. "Computational Analysis of Scoring Models for R and D Project Selection," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(4), pages 212-232, December.
    2. Norman Baker & James Freeland, 1975. "Recent Advances in R&D Benefit Measurement and Project Selection Methods," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(10), pages 1164-1175, June.
    3. Hartmann, Marcus & Hassan, Ali, 2006. "Application of real options analysis for pharmaceutical R&D project valuation--Empirical results from a survey," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 343-354, April.
    4. Burton V. Dean & Meir J. Nishry, 1965. "Scoring and Profitability Models for Evaluating and Selecting Engineering Projects," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 550-569, August.
    5. Liesio, Juuso & Mild, Pekka & Salo, Ahti, 2007. "Preference programming for robust portfolio modeling and project selection," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(3), pages 1488-1505, September.
    6. Matthew J. Liberatore & Anthony C. Stylianou, 1995. "Expert Support Systems for New Product Development Decision Making: A Modeling Framework and Applications," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(8), pages 1296-1316, August.
    7. Fang, Yong & Chen, Lihua & Fukushima, Masao, 2008. "A mixed R&D projects and securities portfolio selection model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 185(2), pages 700-715, March.
    8. Herrera, F. & Herrera-Viedma, E., 2000. "Choice functions and mechanisms for linguistic preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 144-161, January.
    9. Eilat, Harel & Golany, Boaz & Shtub, Avraham, 2008. "R&D project evaluation: An integrated DEA and balanced scorecard approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 895-912, October.
    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. Zharova, Alona & Härdle, Wolfgang Karl & Lessmann, Stefan, 2023. "Data-driven support for policy and decision-making in university research management: A case study from Germany," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 308(1), pages 353-368.
    2. Çağlar, Musa & Gürel, Sinan, 2019. "Impact assessment based sectoral balancing in public R&D project portfolio selection," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 68-81.
    3. Xiaomin Xu & Qiong Wang & Dongxiao Niu & Lihui Zhang, 2018. "Synergistic Effect Evaluation of Main and Auxiliary Industry of Power Grid Based on the Information Fusion Technology from the Perspective of Sustainable Development of Enterprises," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-18, February.
    4. Jessop, Alan, 2014. "IMP: A decision aid for multiattribute evaluation using imprecise weight estimates," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 18-29.
    5. Mavrotas, George & Makryvelios, Evangelos, 2021. "Combining multiple criteria analysis, mathematical programming and Monte Carlo simulation to tackle uncertainty in Research and Development project portfolio selection: A case study from Greece," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 291(2), pages 794-806.
    6. Schäfer, Luca E. & Dietz, Tobias & Barbati, Maria & Figueira, José Rui & Greco, Salvatore & Ruzika, Stefan, 2021. "The binary knapsack problem with qualitative levels," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 289(2), pages 508-514.
    7. Aorui Bi & Shuya Huang & Xinguo Sun, 2023. "Risk Assessment of Oil and Gas Pipeline Based on Vague Set-Weighted Set Pair Analysis Method," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-21, January.

    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. Scobie, Grant M., 1984. "Investment in Agricultural Research: Some Economic Principles," Economics Working Papers 232447, CIMMYT: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center.
    2. Ali Tlili & Oumaima Khaled & Vincent Mousseau & Wassila Ouerdane, 2023. "Interactive portfolio selection involving multicriteria sorting models," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 1169-1195, June.
    3. Sungjoo Lee & Chanwoo Cho & Jaehong Choi & Byungun Yoon, 2017. "R&D Project Selection Incorporating Customer-Perceived Value and Technology Potential: The Case of the Automobile Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-18, October.
    4. Chun, Dongphil & Hong, Sungjun & Chung, Yanghon & Woo, Chungwon & Seo, Hangyeol, 2016. "Influencing factors on hydrogen energy R&D projects: An ex-post performance evaluation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 1252-1258.
    5. Dalton Garcia Borges de Souza & Erivelton Antonio dos Santos & Nei Yoshihiro Soma & Carlos Eduardo Sanches da Silva, 2021. "MCDM-Based R&D Project Selection: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-34, October.
    6. Fernández Carazo, Ana & Gómez Núñez, Trinidad & Guerrero Casas, Flor M. & Caballero Fernández, Rafael, 2008. "Evaluación y clasificación de las técnicas utilizadas por las organizaciones, en las últimas décadas, para seleccionar proyectos = Evaluation and classification of the techniques used by organizations," Revista de Métodos Cuantitativos para la Economía y la Empresa = Journal of Quantitative Methods for Economics and Business Administration, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Quantitative Methods for Economics and Business Administration, vol. 5(1), pages 67-115, June.
    7. Kun Chen & Xian-tong Ren & Guo-liang Yang & Hai-bo Qin, 2022. "The other side of the coin: The declining of Chinese social science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 127-143, January.
    8. Seunghoon Lee & Young Hoon Lee & Yongho Choi, 2019. "Project Portfolio Selection Considering Total Cost of Ownership in the Automobile Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-17, August.
    9. Vilkkumaa, Eeva & Liesiö, Juuso & Salo, Ahti, 2014. "Optimal strategies for selecting project portfolios using uncertain value estimates," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 233(3), pages 772-783.
    10. Li, Yan-Lai & Tang, Jia-Fu & Chin, Kwai-Sang & Jiang, Yu-Shi & Han, Yi & Pu, Yun, 2011. "Estimating the final priority ratings of engineering characteristics in mature-period product improvement by MDBA and AHP," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(2), pages 575-586, June.
    11. Xu, Zeshui, 2005. "Deviation measures of linguistic preference relations in group decision making," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 249-254, June.
    12. Panos Xidonas & Haris Doukas & George Mavrotas & Olena Pechak, 2016. "Environmental corporate responsibility for investments evaluation: an alternative multi-objective programming model," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 247(2), pages 395-413, December.
    13. Maarten Ijzerman & Lotte Steuten, 2011. "Early assessment of medical technologies to inform product development and market access," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(5), pages 331-347, September.
    14. Baker, Erin & Bosetti, Valentina & Salo, Ahti, 2016. "Finding Common Ground when Experts Disagree: Belief Dominance over Portfolios of Alternatives," MITP: Mitigation, Innovation and Transformation Pathways 243147, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    15. Raisa Pérez-Vas & Félix Puime Guillén & Joaquín Enríquez-Díaz, 2021. "Valuation of a Company Producing and Trading Seaweed for Human Consumption: Classical Methods vs. Real Options," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-13, May.
    16. 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.
    17. Meng Fanyong & Tan Chunqiao, 2017. "Distance Measures for Hesitant Intuitionistic Fuzzy Linguistic Sets," ECONOMIC COMPUTATION AND ECONOMIC CYBERNETICS STUDIES AND RESEARCH, Faculty of Economic Cybernetics, Statistics and Informatics, vol. 51(4), pages 207-224.
    18. Madjid Tavana & Mariya Sodenkamp & Leena Suhl, 2010. "A soft multi-criteria decision analysis model with application to the European Union enlargement," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 393-421, December.
    19. Scott E. Sampson, 2008. "OR PRACTICE---Optimization of Vacation Timeshare Scheduling," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 56(5), pages 1079-1088, October.
    20. George Charalampopoulos & Dimitris Katsianis & Dimitris Varoutas, 2022. "Economic replicability tests: an “out-of-the-box” implementation," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 115-138, October.

    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:230:y:2013:i:3:p:656-665. 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/eor .

    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.