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. 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.
    2. 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.
    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. 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.
    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)

    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. 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.
    3. Esteban Lafuente & Jasmina Berbegal-Mirabent, 2019. "Assessing the productivity of technology transfer offices: an analysis of the relevance of aspiration performance and portfolio complexity," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 778-801, June.
    4. 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.
    5. Beck, Mathias & Junge, Martin & Kaiser, Ulrich, 2017. "Public Funding and Corporate Innovation," IZA Discussion Papers 11196, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Ricardo Moutinho & Manuel Au-Yong-Oliveira & Arnaldo Coelho & José Pires Manso, 2016. "Determinants of knowledge-based entrepreneurship: an exploratory approach," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 171-197, March.
    9. Paola Giuri & Federico Munari & Martina Pasquini, 2013. "What Determines University Patent Commercialization? Empirical Evidence on the Role of IPR Ownership," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(5), pages 488-502, July.
    10. Catarina Maia & João Claro, 2013. "The role of a Proof of Concept Center in a university ecosystem: an exploratory study," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(5), pages 641-650, October.
    11. Taouaf, Ilham & Elyoussoufi Attou, Omar & El Ganich, Said & Arouch, Moha, 2021. "The Technology Transfer Office (TTO): Toward a Viable Model for Universities in Morocco," Cuadernos de Gestión, Universidad del País Vasco - Instituto de Economía Aplicada a la Empresa (IEAE).
    12. James A. Cunningham & Paul O’Reilly, 2018. "Macro, meso and micro perspectives of technology transfer," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 545-557, June.
    13. Fabrizio Cesaroni & Andrea Piccaluga, 2016. "The activities of university knowledge transfer offices: towards the third mission in Italy," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 753-777, August.
    14. 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.
    15. Insu Cho & Young Hoon Kwak & Jaehyeon Jun, 2019. "Sustainable Idea Development Mechanism in University Technology Commercialization (UTC): Perspectives from Dynamic Capabilities Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-16, November.
    16. Federica Rossi, 2014. "The efficiency of universities’ knowledge transfer activities: A multi-output approach beyond patenting and licensing," Working Papers 16, Birkbeck Centre for Innovation Management Research, revised Feb 2014.
    17. Bijedić, Teita & Chlosta, Simone & Werner, Arndt, 2016. "Inventions and their commercial exploitation in academic institutions: Analysing determinants among academics," Working Papers 04/16, Institut für Mittelstandsforschung (IfM) Bonn.
    18. Meoli, Azzurra & Fini, Riccardo & Sobrero, Maurizio & Wiklund, Johan, 2020. "How entrepreneurial intentions influence entrepreneurial career choices: The moderating influence of social context," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 35(3).
    19. 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.
    20. Victoria Galán-Muros & Peter Sijde & Peter Groenewegen & Thomas Baaken, 2017. "Nurture over nature: How do European universities support their collaboration with business?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 184-205, February.

    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.