IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Appraisal of Research Infrastructures: Approaches, methods and practical implications


  • Chiara PANCOTTI
  • Silvia VIGNETTI


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

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. 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.
    2. Albert N. Link & Nicholas S. Vonortas (ed.), 2013. "Handbook on the Theory and Practice of Program Evaluation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14384.
    3. 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.
    4. Link, Albert, 2018. "The Theory and Practice of Program Evaluation," UNCG Economics Working Papers 18-3, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Department of Economics.
    5. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. 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. Gkoumas, Konstantinos & van Balen, Mitchell & Tsakalidis, Anastasios & Pekar, Ferenc, 2022. "Evaluating the development of transport technologies in European research and innovation projects between 2007 and 2020," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    3. Andrea, Bastianin & Paolo, Castelnuovo & Massimo, Florio & Anna, Giunta, 2019. "Technological Learning and Innovation Gestation Lags at the Frontier of Science: from CERN Procurement to Patents," Working Papers 405, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Apr 2019.
    4. Jan Fagerberg & Maryann Feldman & Martin Srholec, 2011. "Technological Dynamics and Social Capability: Comparing U.S. States and European Nations," Working Papers on Innovation Studies 20111114, Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo.
    5. Jisun Kim & Tugrul Daim, 2014. "A new approach to measuring time-lags in technology licensing: study of U.S. academic research institutions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(5), pages 748-773, October.
    6. Kroll, Henning, 2016. "Supporting new strategic models of science-industry R&D collaboration: A review of global experiences," Working Papers "Firms and Region" R2/2016, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    7. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Daniele Biancardi & Mabel Sanchez Barrioluengo & Federico Biagi, 2019. "Study on Higher Education Institutions and Local Development," JRC Research Reports JRC117272, Joint Research Centre (Seville site).
    8. John Houghton & Charles Oppenheim, 2010. "The economic implications of alternative publishing models," Prometheus, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(1), pages 41-54.
    9. Bruce Rasmussen, 2010. "Innovation and Commercialisation in the Biopharmaceutical Industry," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13680.
    10. 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.
    11. Massimo Florio & Francesco Giffoni & Anna Giunta & Emanuela Sirtori, 2018. "Big science, learning, and innovation: evidence from CERN procurement," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(5), pages 915-936.
    12. Bodas Freitas, Isabel Maria & Verspagen, Bart, 2009. "The motivations, organisation and outcomes of university-industry interaction in the Netherlands," MERIT Working Papers 2009-011, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. García-Romero, Antonio & Escribano, Álvaro & Tribó, Josep A., 2017. "The impact of health research on length of stay in Spanish public hospitals," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 591-604.
    17. Tse, Caleb H. & Yim, Chi Kin Bennett & Yin, Eden & Wan, Feng & Jiao, Hao, 2021. "R&D activities and innovation performance of MNE subsidiaries: The moderating effects of government support and entry mode," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    More about this item


    Research infrastructures; Cost-benefit analysis; Externalities; Public good; Knowledge;
    All these 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


    Access and download statistics


    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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . 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 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: .

    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.