IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mil/wpdepa/2014-13.html

Appraisal of Research Infrastructures: Approaches, methods and practical implications

Author

Listed:
  • Chiara PANCOTTI

  • Julie PELLEGRIN

  • Silvia VIGNETTI

Abstract

Reflecting the growing importance taken by research infrastructures (RIs) and especially large ones (“Big Science”), there is increasing concern about the way these are selected for public funding and appraised, an issue that takes a specific relevance in the context of the current public spending constraint. The objective of this paper is to review international practices in RI projects selection and appraisal. In particular it accounts for the development of new evaluation approaches and tools mobilising quantitative and systematic methods that illustrate a shift away from traditional methods relying on peer review. It finds that “roadmaps” or systematic strategic planning of RIs make increasing recourse to quantitative indicators besides the “science case”. Also, even if still rare, there are examples of RIs selection processes based on a comparison of costs and benefits, as well as comprehensive approaches resorting to quantitative indicators adopted to monitor and assess RIs. In this context, cost benefit analysis emerges as a promising decision-making tool which needs however tailored techniques to account for the specificities of socio-economic benefits generated by RIs.

Suggested Citation

  • Chiara PANCOTTI & Julie PELLEGRIN & Silvia VIGNETTI, 2014. "Appraisal of Research Infrastructures: Approaches, methods and practical implications," Departmental Working Papers 2014-13, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    • Handle: RePEc:mil:wpdepa:2014-13
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://wp.demm.unimi.it/files/wp/2014/DEMM-2014_13wp.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. A. Heher, 2006. "Return on Investment in Innovation: Implications for Institutions and National Agencies," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 403-414, July.
    2. Albert Link, 2018. "The Theory and Practice of Program Evaluation," UNCG Economics Working Papers 18-3, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Department of Economics.
    3. Ghislaine Tremblay & Sandra Zohar & Juliana Bravo & Peter Potsepp & Meg Barker, 2010. "The Canada Foundation for Innovation's outcome measurement study: a pioneering approach to research evaluation," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(5), pages 333-345, December.
    4. Ben Martin & Puay Tang, 2007. "The benefits from publicly funded research," SPRU Working Paper Series 161, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    5. Albert N. Link & Nicholas S. Vonortas (ed.), 2013. "Handbook on the Theory and Practice of Program Evaluation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14384, June.
    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. Laurent Bach & Sandrine Wolff, 2022. "The BETA-EvaRIO impact evaluation method: towards a bridging approach?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 651-672, June.
    2. Laurent Bach & Sandrine Wolff, 2017. "The BETA-EvaRIO impact evaluation method: towards a bridging approach?," Post-Print hal-02167827, HAL.
    3. Massimo FLORIO & Emanuela SIRTORI, 2014. "The Evaluation of Research Infrastructures: a Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework," Departmental Working Papers 2014-10, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.

    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. Adriana Bin & Sergio Salles-Filho & Luiza Maria Capanema & Fernando Antonio Basile Colugnati, 2015. "What difference does it make? Impact of peer-reviewed scholarships on scientific production," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1167-1188, February.
    2. Hameeda A. AlMalki & Christopher M. Durugbo, 2023. "Systematic review of institutional innovation literature: towards a multi-level management model," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 73(2), pages 731-785, June.
    3. Castelnovo, Paolo & Florio, Massimo & Forte, Stefano & Rossi, Lucio & Sirtori, Emanuela, 2018. "The economic impact of technological procurement for large-scale research infrastructures: Evidence from the Large Hadron Collider at CERN," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1853-1867.
    4. Bruce Rasmussen, 2010. "Innovation and Commercialisation in the Biopharmaceutical Industry," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13680, June.
    5. Albert N. Link & John T. Scott, 2019. "The economic benefits of technology transfer from U.S. federal laboratories," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(5), pages 1416-1426, October.
    6. James Cunningham & Paul O’Reilly & Conor O’Kane & Vincent Mangematin, 2014. "The inhibiting factors that principal investigators experience in leading publicly funded research," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 93-110, February.
    7. Paolo Castelnovo & Martina Dal Molin, 2021. "The learning mechanisms through public procurement for innovation: The case of government‐funded basic research organizations," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 92(3), pages 411-446, September.
    8. B. Urban & J. Chantson, 2019. "Academic entrepreneurship in South Africa: testing for entrepreneurial intentions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 948-980, June.
    9. Kadigia Faccin & Christle Beer & Bibiana Volkmer Martins & Grabriela Zanandrea & Neta Kela & Corne Schutte, 2022. "What really matters for TTOs efficiency? An analysis of TTOs in developed and developing economies," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 1135-1161, August.
    10. Del Bo, Chiara F., 2016. "The rate of return to investment in R&D: The case of research infrastructures," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 26-37.
    11. Bodas Freitas, Isabel & Castellacci, Fulvio & Fontana, Roberto & Malerba, Franco & Vezzulli, Andrea, 2017. "Sectors and the additionality effects of R&D tax credits: A cross-country microeconometric analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 57-72.
    12. Huergo, Elena & Trenado, Mayte & Ubierna, Andrés, 2016. "The impact of public support on firm propensity to engage in R&D: Spanish experience," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 113(PB), pages 206-219.
    13. Laurent Bach & Sandrine Wolff, 2017. "The BETA-EvaRIO impact evaluation method: towards a bridging approach?," Post-Print hal-02167827, HAL.
    14. Thomas, V.J. & Bliemel, Martin & Shippam, Cynthia & Maine, Elicia, 2020. "Endowing university spin-offs pre-formation: Entrepreneurial capabilities for scientist-entrepreneurs," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 96.
    15. Kamilla Kohn Rådberg & Hans Löfsten, 2023. "Developing a knowledge ecosystem for large-scale research infrastructure," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 441-467, February.
    16. James Cunningham & Paul O'Reilly & Conor O'Kane & Vincent Mangematin, 2014. "The inhibiting factors that principal investigators experience in leading publicly funded research projects," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) hal-00756228, HAL.
    17. Gaëlle Vallée-Tourangeau & Ana Wheelock & Tushna Vandrevala & Priscilla Harries, 2022. "Peer reviewers’ dilemmas: a qualitative exploration of decisional conflict in the evaluation of grant applications in the medical humanities and social sciences," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.
    18. Massimo FLORIO & Francesco GIFFONI, 2019. "L’impatto sociale della produzione di scienza su larga scala: come governarlo?," Departmental Working Papers 2019-05, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    19. repec:hal:wpaper:hal-00756228 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. López Iturriaga, Félix & Marti­n Cruz, Natalia, 2008. "Antecedents of corporate spin-offs in Spain: A resource-based approach," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6-7), pages 1047-1056, July.
    21. Thomas Brenner & Sidonia von Ledebur, 2008. "Academic Inventors' Choice of Transfer Channels Dependent on Commercialisation Experience - a Theoretical Model," Working Papers on Innovation and Space 2008-01, Philipps University Marburg, Department of Geography.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • H43 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Project Evaluation; Social Discount Rate
    • H54 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Infrastructures
    • I23 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Higher Education; Research Institutions
    • O22 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Development Planning and Policy - - - Project Analysis

    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:mil:wpdepa:2014-13. 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: DEMM Working Papers The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask DEMM Working Papers to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/damilit.html .

    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.