IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring and comparing the R&D performance of government research institutes: A bottom-up data envelopment analysis approach


  • Lee, Seonghee
  • Lee, Hakyeon


Government-funded research institutes (GRIs) have played a pivotal role in national R&D in many countries. A prerequisite for achieving desired goals of GRIs with the limited R&D budget is to be able to effectively measure and compare R&D performance of GRIs. This paper proposes the bottom-up approach in which the performance of a GRI is measured based on the efficiency of its R&D projects. Data envelopment analysis (DEA) is employed to measure R&D efficiency of projects, and nonparametric statistical tests are run to measure and compare the R&D performance of GRIs. We apply the bottom-up DEA approach to the performance measurements of 10 Korean GRIs conducting a total of 1481 projects. The two alternatives for incorporating the relative importance of the output variables – the assurance region (AR) model and output integration – are also discussed. The proposed bottom-up approach can be used for formulating and implementing national R&D policy by effectively assessing the performance of GRIs.

Suggested Citation

  • Lee, Seonghee & Lee, Hakyeon, 2015. "Measuring and comparing the R&D performance of government research institutes: A bottom-up data envelopment analysis approach," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 942-953.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:9:y:2015:i:4:p:942-953
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2015.10.001

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    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

    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. Abramo, Giovanni & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea, 2014. "Assessing national strengths and weaknesses in research fields," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 766-775.
    3. 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.
    4. Cherchye, L. & Abeele, P. Vanden, 2005. "On research efficiency: A micro-analysis of Dutch university research in Economics and Business Management," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 495-516, May.
    5. Per Andersen & Niels Christian Petersen, 1993. "A Procedure for Ranking Efficient Units in Data Envelopment Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(10), pages 1261-1264, October.
    6. Guan, Jiancheng & Chen, Kaihua, 2012. "Modeling the relative efficiency of national innovation systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 102-115.
    7. Ortega, José Luis & López-Romero, Elena & Fernández, Inés, 2011. "Multivariate approach to classify research institutes according to their outputs: The case of the CSIC's institutes," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 323-332.
    8. Eom, Boo-Young & Lee, Keun, 2010. "Determinants of industry-academy linkages and, their impact on firm performance: The case of Korea as a latecomer in knowledge industrialization," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 625-639, June.
    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. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Saaty, Thomas L., 1990. "How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 9-26, September.
    13. Lee, Hakyeon & Shin, Juneseuk, 2014. "Measuring journal performance for multidisciplinary research: An efficiency perspective," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 77-88.
    14. Liu, John S. & Lu, Wen-Min, 2010. "DEA and ranking with the network-based approach: a case of R&D performance," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 453-464, December.
    15. Banker, Rajiv D. & Chang, Hsihui, 2006. "The super-efficiency procedure for outlier identification, not for ranking efficient units," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 175(2), pages 1311-1320, December.
    16. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D'Angelo, 2009. "Assessing technical and cost efficiency of research activities: a case study of the Italian university system," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(1), pages 61-70, March.
    17. Johnes, Jill & Johnes, Geraint, 1995. "Research funding and performance in U.K. University Departments of Economics: A frontier analysis," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 301-314, September.
    18. 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.
    19. Groot, Tom & Garcia-Valderrama, Teresa, 2006. "Research quality and efficiency: An analysis of assessments and management issues in Dutch economics and business research programs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 1362-1376, November.
    20. Hsu, Fang-Ming & Hsueh, Chao-Chih, 2009. "Measuring relative efficiency of government-sponsored R&D projects: A three-stage approach," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 178-186, May.
    21. Adler, Nicole & Friedman, Lea & Sinuany-Stern, Zilla, 2002. "Review of ranking methods in the data envelopment analysis context," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(2), pages 249-265, July.
    22. Tommaso Agasisti & Giuseppe Catalano & Paolo Landoni & Roberto Verganti, 2012. "Evaluating the performance of academic departments: an analysis of research-related output efficiency," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(1), pages 2-14, February.
    23. 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.
    24. 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.
    25. Abramo, Giovanni & Cicero, Tindaro & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea, 2011. "A field-standardized application of DEA to national-scale research assessment of universities," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 618-628.
    26. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Cinzia Daraio, 2003. "A robust nonparametric approach to the analysis of scientific productivity," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(1), pages 47-69, April.
    27. 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.
    28. Meng, Wei & Zhang, Daqun & Qi, Li & Liu, Wenbin, 2008. "Two-level DEA approaches in research evaluation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 950-957, December.
    29. 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)


    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:infome:v:9:y:2015:i:4:p:942-953. 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: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: .

    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.