IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i18p11737-d918720.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Performance Measurement in R&D Projects: Relevance of Indicators Based on US and German Experts

Author

Listed:
  • Vaida Zemlickienė

    (Institute of Sustainable Construction, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, 10223 Vilnius, Lithuania)

  • Zenonas Turskis

    (Institute of Sustainable Construction, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, 10223 Vilnius, Lithuania)

Abstract

To turn technologies into successful products, it is necessary to understand the development process from ideas to the market and to know how to measure performance. Performance measurement is critical for technology developers and investors in monitoring whether performance meets expectations to make decisions about actions for improving R&D characteristics. This article emphasizes indicators for R&D project performance measurement, especially relevant for measuring project performance in company, start-up and spin-off companies, where the project is perceived as an independent business unit. A clear set of indicators for measuring and controlling the performance of R&D projects for policy representatives would allow them to identify problematic areas in the implementation of R&D projects and to make well-aimed decisions for the promotion and financing of technology development. What indicators should be used to measure the performance of R&D projects? Attempts to find the answer to the question in science were unsuccessful. This article aims to select indicators for measuring the performance of R&D projects and identify and compare their relevance among US and German experts. Research is carried out in different countries, and their results create opportunities for mutual learning and more intensive international cooperation in technological development. In order to achieve a goal, essential decision-making points in R&D projects were identified, and a general set of R&D performance evaluation indicators were prepared based on a literature analysis. Later, two groups of experts from the US and Germany selected from the general list indicators suitable only for evaluating R&D projects and evaluated their relevance. The obtained evaluation results of the US and German experts were processed using the MCDM method and compared.

Suggested Citation

  • Vaida Zemlickienė & Zenonas Turskis, 2022. "Performance Measurement in R&D Projects: Relevance of Indicators Based on US and German Experts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-15, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:18:p:11737-:d:918720
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/18/11737/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/18/11737/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Isabel Palomo-Domínguez & Vaida Zemlickienė, 2022. "Evaluation Expediency of Eco-Friendly Advertising Formats for Different Generation Based on Spanish Advertising Experts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-21, January.
    2. Cedergren, Stefan & Wall, Anders & Norström, Christer, 2010. "Evaluation of performance in a product development context," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 359-369, July.
    3. Vaida Zemlickienė & Zenonas Turskis, 2022. "Technology Development Decision-Making Points and Differences in Identifying Commercial Opportunities for Mechatronics, Laser, and Nanoelectronic Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-22, June.
    4. Donald S. Siegel & Reinhilde Veugelers & Mike Wright, 2007. "Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: performance and policy implications," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 23(4), pages 640-660, Winter.
    5. Haddad, Malik & Sanders, David, 2018. "Selection of discrete multiple criteria decision making methods in the presence of risk and uncertainty," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 357-370.
    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. Cristina López & Arash Moheimani & Alessio Ishizaka, 2025. "Managing risks in technological R&D projects with Probability-Impact AHPSort," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 346(2), pages 1285-1320, March.

    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. Vaida Zemlickienė & Zenonas Turskis, 2022. "Determination of Importance of Key Decision Points in the Technology Commercialization Process: Attitude of the US and German Experts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-13, November.
    2. Battaglia, Daniele & Landoni, Paolo & Rizzitelli, Francesco, 2017. "Organizational structures for external growth of University Technology Transfer Offices: An explorative analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 45-56.
    3. Link, Albert N. & Siegel, Donald S. & Van Fleet, David D., 2011. "Public science and public innovation: Assessing the relationship between patenting at U.S. National Laboratories and the Bayh-Dole Act," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 1094-1099, October.
    4. David Grosse Kathoefer & Jens Leker, 2012. "Knowledge transfer in academia: an exploratory study on the Not-Invented-Here Syndrome," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(5), pages 658-675, October.
    5. repec:ehu:cuader:52006 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Zoe Chen & Vicki Janine Little & Nguyen Hoang Thuan, 2025. "The evolving role of technology transfer offices in the entrepreneurial university: Go-betweens or playmakers?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 50(3), pages 1060-1079, June.
    7. Jose M. Sallan & Oriol Lordan, 2025. "University technology transfer: leveraging experiential learning and TTO’s resources," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 64(1), pages 221-237, January.
    8. Gianluca Fabiano & Andrea Marcellusi & Giampiero Favato, 2020. "Public–private contribution to biopharmaceutical discoveries: a bibliometric analysis of biomedical research in UK," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 153-168, July.
    9. Aldridge, T. Taylor & Audretsch, David, 2011. "The Bayh-Dole Act and scientist entrepreneurship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 1058-1067, October.
    10. Cornelia Lawson, 2013. "Academic Inventions Outside the University: Investigating Patent Ownership in the UK," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(5), pages 385-398, July.
    11. Odysseas Cartalos & Stelios Rozakis & Dominiki Tsiouki, 2018. "A method to assess and support exploitation projects of university researchers," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 986-1006, August.
    12. Rhoda Ahoba-Sam & David Charles, 2019. "Building of Academics’ Networks—An analysis based on Causation and Effectuation theory," Review of Regional Research: Jahrbuch für Regionalwissenschaft, Springer;Gesellschaft für Regionalforschung (GfR), vol. 39(2), pages 143-161, October.
    13. Paolo Gubitta & Alessandra Tognazzo & Federica Destro, 2016. "Signaling in academic ventures: the role of technology transfer offices and university funds," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 368-393, April.
    14. Prokop, Daniel, 2021. "University entrepreneurial ecosystems and spinoff companies: Configurations, developments and outcomes," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    15. Yung-Chi Shen, 2017. "Identifying the key barriers and their interrelationships impeding the university technology transfer in Taiwan: a multi-stakeholder perspective," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(6), pages 2865-2884, November.
    16. Schneider, K. Florian, 2024. "Intermediaries (not) in action: Impediments to initiating the utilization of public research," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    17. Hiroyuki Okamuro & Junichi Nishimura, 2013. "Impact of university intellectual property policy on the performance of university-industry research collaboration," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 273-301, June.
    18. Maria Abreu & Vadim Grinevich, 2017. "Gender patterns in academic entrepreneurship," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 763-794, August.
    19. Klofsten, Magnus & Fayolle, Alain & Guerrero, Maribel & Mian, Sarfraz & Urbano, David & Wright, Mike, 2019. "The entrepreneurial university as driver for economic growth and social change - Key strategic challenges," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 149-158.
    20. Michaela Trippl & Tanja Sinozic & Helen Lawton Smith, 2015. "The Role of Universities in Regional Development: Conceptual Models and Policy Institutions in the UK, Sweden and Austria," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(9), pages 1722-1740, September.
    21. Haddad, M. & Sanders, D. & Tewkesbury, G., 2020. "Selecting a discrete multiple criteria decision making method for Boeing to rank four global market regions," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 1-15.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:18:p:11737-:d:918720. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.