Predicting project approvals: A case of grants from the National Science Council of Taiwan
Project selection is an important task for organizations in achieving their missions using limited budgets and resources. Whether or not a project will be approved is also of primary concern to the applicants. This paper predicts whether a project will be approved for cases where the criteria for evaluating it are known while the scoring system is not. The idea is to construct a frontier function for the approved projects from past performance on the criteria. The relative distance between a proposed project and the frontier serves as an indicator of the possibility that the project will be approved. Data from the Management II Division of the National Science Council of Taiwan in the Topic Research Project are collected to illustrate this approach. From the percentile of the distance measure, an applicant is able to predict the possibility that their project will be approved. Since professors with different levels of experience and different research areas have different research performance, these factors are taken into account in the prediction. A Malmquist productivity index analysis is also conducted to investigate the performance improvement of the applicants in research between two periods.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 40 (2012)
Issue (Month): 1 (January)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Partovi, Fariborz Y., 2011. "Corporate philanthropic selection using data envelopment analysis," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 522-527, October.
- Cooper, W. W. & Tone, K., 1997. "Measures of inefficiency in data envelopment analysis and stochastic frontier estimation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 99(1), pages 72-88, May.
- Pastor, Jesus T. & Lovell, C.A. Knox, 2005. "A global Malmquist productivity index," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 266-271, August.
- Hassanzadeh, Farhad & Collan, Mikael & Modarres, Mohammad, 2011. "A technical note on "A fuzzy set approach for R&D portfolio selection using a real options valuation model" by Wang and Hwang (2007)," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 464-465, August.
- Meløn, Mønica García & Aragonés Beltran, Pablo & Carmen González Cruz, M., 2008. "An AHP-based evaluation procedure for Innovative Educational Projects: A face-to-face vs. computer-mediated case study," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 754-765, October.
- Kao, Chiang, 2010. "Malmquist productivity index based on common-weights DEA: The case of Taiwan forests after reorganization," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 484-491, December.
- 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.
- Graves, Samuel B. & Ringuest, Jeffrey L., 2009. "Probabilistic dominance criteria for comparing uncertain alternatives: A tutorial," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 346-357, April.
- Roll, Y & Golany, B., 1993. "Alternate methods of treating factor weights in DEA," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 99-109, January.
- Schmidt, Peter, 1976. "On the Statistical Estimation of Parametric Frontier Production Functions," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 58(2), pages 238-239, May.
- Caves, Douglas W & Christensen, Laurits R & Diewert, W Erwin, 1982. "Multilateral Comparisons of Output, Input, and Productivity Using Superlative Index Numbers," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(365), pages 73-86, March.
- Caves, Douglas W & Christensen, Laurits R & Diewert, W Erwin, 1982. "The Economic Theory of Index Numbers and the Measurement of Input, Output, and Productivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(6), pages 1393-1414, November.
- 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.
- Doyle, John R., 1995. "Multiattribute Choice for the Lazy Decision Maker: Let the Alternatives Decide!," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 87-100, April.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:40:y:2012:i:1:p:89-95. 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)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.