Research and Development Activity Matrix - New Conception in the Performance Evaluation of Research and Development
Keywords:
Research and development, performance measurementAbstract
In the first part of the paper, we examine the different measurement methods of research and development activity within a corporation with particular attention to the composite indicators widespread in practice and to the multivariate statistical methods applied to create complex indices. In the second part, the research and development activity matrix is introduced in detail. The newly developed analysing method is a portfolio technique that describes the input and output activity of the research and development units in respect of quantity (performance) and quality (efficiency) and enables the categorisation of the observation units into four groups: stars, those lagging behind, quantity-oriented units and quality-oriented units.
References
ARCHIBUGI, D. – COCO, A. (2004): A New Indicator of Technological Capabilities for Developed and Developing Countries (ArCo). World Development. 32. évf. 4. sz. 629–654. old.
ARCHIBUGI, D. – DENNI, M. – FILIPPETTI, A. (2009): Global Innovation Scoreboard 2008. Pro Inno Europe/Inno Metrics. Brussels.
BORSI B. (2005): Tudás, technológia és a magyar versenyképesség. PhD-értekezés. Budapest.
BORSI B. – TELCS A. (2004): A K+F-tevékenység nemzetközi összehasonlítása ország-statisztikák alapján. Közgazdasági Szemle. 51. évf. 2. sz. 153–172. old.
BUNKÓCZI L. – PITLIK L. (1999): A DEA (Data Envelopment Analysis) módszer falhasználási lehetőségei üzemhatékonyságok méréséhez. Agrárinformatika. Debrecen.
EC (European Commission) [2009]: European Innovation Scoreboard. Brussels.
FÄRE, R. – GROSSKOPF, S. – KNOX LOVELL, C. A. (1994): Production Frontiers. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
FÜLÖP J. – TEMESI J. (2001): A Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) alkalmazása ipari parkok hatékonyságának vizsgálatára. Szigma. 32. évf. 3–4. sz. 85–109. old.
HOLLANDERS, H. (2007): Regional Innovation Scoreboard 2006. Pro Inno Europe/Inno Metrics, Brussels.
HOLLANDERS, H. – KANERVA, M. (2009): Service Sector Innovation – Measuring Innovation Performance for 2004 and 2006 Using Sector Specific Innovation Indexes. Pro Inno Europe/Inno Metrics. Brussels.
HOLLANDERS, H. – VAN CRUYSEN, A. (2008a): Design, Creativity and Innovation – A Scoreboard Approach. Pro Inno Europe/Inno Metrics. Brussels.
HOLLANDERS, H. – VAN CRUYSEN, A. (2008b): Rethinking the European Innovation Scoreboard – A New Methodology for 2008–2010. Pro Inno Europe/Inno Metrics. Brussels.
HUI, D.– NG, C.– MOK, P. – FONG, N. – CHIN, W. – YUEN, C. (2005): A Study on Creativity Index. Hong Kong Home Affairs Bureau. The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government. Hong Kong.
IMD (International Institute for Management and Development) (2009): World Competitiveness Yearbook 2009. Lausanne.
KOTY, L. (1997): A gazdasági hatékonyság számítása DEA lineáris programmal. Statisztikai Szemle. 75. évf. 6. sz. 515–524. old.
http://www.ksh.hu/statszemle_archive/1997/1997_06/1997_06_515.pdf
MALHOTRA, N. K. (2002): Marketingkutatás. KJK-KERSZÖV Jogi és Üzleti Kiadó. Budapest.
MOON, H. S. – LEE, J. D. (2005): A Fuzzy Set Theory Approach to National Composite S&T Indices. Scientometrics. 64. évf. 1. sz. 67–83. old.
MOON, J. H. – KANG, C. S. (1999): Use of Fuzzy Set Theory in the Aggregation of Expert Judgments. Annals of Nuclear Energy. 26. évf. 1. sz. 461–469. old.
NARDO, M. – SAISANA, M. – SALTELLI, A. – TARANTOLA, S. – HOFFMAN, A. – GIOVANNINI, E. (2005): Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators – Methodology and User Guide. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Paris.
NSB (National Science Board) (2008): Science and Engineering Indicators 2008. Arlington.
NIWA, F. – TOMIZAWA, H. (1995): Composite Indicators – International Comparison of Overall Strengths in Science and Technology. National Institute of Science and Technology Policy. Tokyo.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2005): Measuring Globalization – OECD Handbook on Economic Globalisation Indicators 2005. Paris.
SOHN, K. Y. – YANG, J. W. – KANG, C. S. (2001): Assimilation of Public Opinions in Nuclear Decision-making Using Risk Perception. Annals of Nuclear Energy. 28. évf. 6. sz. 553–563. old.
TIBENSZKYNÉ F. K. (2007): Az oktatás hatékonyságának mérése a ZMNE 2006-ban végzett hallgatóin Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) módszer használatával. Hadmérnök. 2. évf. 2. sz. 149–165. old.
TÓTH, Á. (1999): Kísérlet a hatékonyság empirikus elemzésére. Magyar Nemzeti Bank. Budapest.
TÖRÖK Á. (2005): Competitiveness in Research and Development – Comparisons and Performance. Edward Elgar Publishing. Cheltenham.
TRAN, L. T. – KNIGHT, C. G. – O’NEILL, R. V. – SMITH, E. R. – RIITTERS, K. H. – WICKHAM, J. (2002): Fuzzy Decision Analysis for Integrated Environmental Vulnerability Assessment of the Mid-Atlantic Region. Environmental Management. 29. évf. 6. sz. 845–859. old.
TSAUR, S. H. – CHANG, T. Y. – YEN, C. H. (2002): The Evaluation of Airline Service Quality by Fuzzy MCDM. Tourism Management. 23. évf. 2. sz. 107–115. old.
UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) (2005): World Investment Report 2005. New York.
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) (2008): Human Development Report 2007/2008. New York.
UNIDO (United Nations Industrial Development Organization) (2005): Industrial Development Report 2005. Vienna.
WAGNER C. S. – HORLINGS, E. – DUTTA, A. (2001a): Science and Technology Collaboration – Building Capacity in Developing Countries. RAND. Santa Monica.
WAGNER C. S. – HORLINGS, E. – DUTTA, A. (2001b): Can Science and Technology Capacity be Measured? RAND. Santa Monica.
WB (World Bank) (2009): World Development Indicators 2009. Washington.
WEF (World Economic Forum) (2008): The Global Competitiveness Report 2008–2009. Geneva.
