IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/hig/fsight/v9y2015i2p38-43.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From Research Project to Research Portfolio: Meeting Scale and Complexity

Author

Listed:
  • Jonathan Linton

    (Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge, National Research University — Higher School of Economics (Russia), and University of Ottawa (Canada))

  • Nicholas Vonortas

    (George Washington University, United States; State University of Campinas, Brazil)

Abstract

The article considers how the past and present tendency to focus on selecting the best projects based on the sole criterion of meritorious science may result in a sub-optimal portfolio. The authors argue that scientists need to proactively engage in the discussion over the need to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of societal investments to ensure that the next generation of the management and decision-making process for our science, technology and innovation system is rooted in sound principles. The classic peer review process tends to provide unintended overlap and allows for an ill fit between some of the pieces and unwanted gaps to occur. Areas of high risk and high return can be missed due to their controversial nature and split decisions typically resulting in negative funding decisions. In general, high risk and a high frequency of split decisions tend to be replaced with lower risk initiatives. The authors propose herein supplementing peer review with research portfolio evaluation approaches and decision-making tools that can better assess research uncertainties and other special features of the transformation of the resulting knowledge into improved social well-being. A coupling of research quality review by peers with more systematic portfolio meta-analysis of recommended projects is both possible and essential.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonathan Linton & Nicholas Vonortas, 2015. "From Research Project to Research Portfolio: Meeting Scale and Complexity," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 9(2), pages 38-43.
    • Handle: RePEc:hig:fsight:v:9:y:2015:i:2:p:38-43
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://foresight-journal.hse.ru/data/2015/06/30/1082517310/03-Linton.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rainer Brosch, 2008. "Portfolios of Real Options," Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, Springer, number 978-3-540-78299-5, October.
    2. Zapata, Juan C. & Reklaitis, Gintaras V., 2010. "Valuation of project portfolios: An endogenously discounted method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 206(3), pages 653-666, November.
    3. van Bekkum, Sjoerd & Pennings, Enrico & Smit, Han, 2009. "A real options perspective on R&D portfolio diversification," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 1150-1158, September.
    4. Nicholas S Vonortas & Chintal A Desai, 2007. "‘Real options’ framework to assess public research investments," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(10), pages 699-708, December.
    5. Sébastien Casault & Aard J. Groen & Jonathan D. Linton, 2012. "Examination of the behavior of R&D returns using a power law," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(2), pages 219-228, November.
    6. Albert N. Link & Nicholas S. Vonortas (ed.), 2013. "Handbook on the Theory and Practice of Program Evaluation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14384.
    7. Nelson, Richard R., 1990. "Capitalism as an engine of progress," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 193-214, June.
    8. Irwin Feller, 2013. "Peer review and expert panels as techniques for evaluating the quality of academic research," Chapters, in: Albert N. Link & Nicholas S. Vonortas (ed.), Handbook on the Theory and Practice of Program Evaluation, chapter 5, pages 115-142, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    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. L. A. Tsvetkova, 2016. "Model For Shaping A System Composed Of Measurable Indicators For Defining Priority Areas Using Us National Institutes Of Healthcare As A Role Example," Economics of Science, Delo Publishing house, vol. 2(1).
    2. Dirk Meissner & Wolfgang Polt & Nicholas S. Vonortas, 2017. "Towards a broad understanding of innovation and its importance for innovation policy," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(5), pages 1184-1211, October.

    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. Giovanna Lo Nigro & Azzurra Morreale & Lorenzo Abbate, 2016. "An Open Innovation Decision Support System to Select a Biopharmaceutical R&D Portfolio," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(6), pages 392-406, September.
    2. David B. Audretsch & A. Roy Thurik, 1999. "Innovation, Industry Evoluation and Employment," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 99-068/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    3. Steven Klepper & Sally Sleeper, 2005. "Entry by Spinoffs," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(8), pages 1291-1306, August.
    4. Krafft Jackie & Quatraro Francesco & Colombelli Alessandra, 2011. "High Growth Firms and Technological Knowledge: Do gazelles follow exploration or exploitation strategies?," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 201114, University of Turin.
    5. Okubo, Yoshiko & Sjoberg, Cecilia, 2000. "The changing pattern of industrial scientific research collaboration in Sweden," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 81-98, January.
    6. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2003. "Links and Impacts: The Influence of Public Research on Industrial R&D," Chapters, in: Aldo Geuna & Ammon J. Salter & W. Edward Steinmueller (ed.), Science and Innovation, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Belleflamme, Paul, 2000. "Stable Coalition Structures with Open Membership and Asymmetric Firms," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 1-21, January.
    8. Cave, Jonathan & Gibson, Stephen, 2023. "Primary and secondary legislation – assessing the impacts of rules for making rules," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1486, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    9. Hernandez-Perdomo, Elvis A. & Mun, Johnathan & Rocco S., Claudio M., 2017. "Active management in state-owned energy companies: Integrating a real options approach into multicriteria analysis to make companies sustainable," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 487-502.
    10. Luisito Bertinelli & Arnaud Bourgain & Florian Léon, 2020. "Corruption and tax compliance: evidence from small retailers in Bamako, Mali," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(5), pages 366-370, March.
    11. Herbert Dawid & Reinhold Decker & Thomas Hermann & Hermann Jahnke & Wilhelm Klat & Rolf König & Christian Stummer, 2017. "Management science in the era of smart consumer products: challenges and research perspectives," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 25(1), pages 203-230, March.
    12. Roberto Camerani & Daniele Rotolo & Nicola Grassano, 2018. "Do Firms Publish? A Multi-Sectoral Analysis," SPRU Working Paper Series 2018-21, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    13. Cantner, Uwe & Pyka, Andreas, 1998. "Technological evolution -- an analysis within the knowledge-based approach," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 85-107, March.
    14. 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.
    15. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Massimo Colombo & Massimiliano Guerini & Cristina Rossi-Lamastra, 2013. "University specialization and new firm creation across industries," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 837-863, December.
    16. Pennings, H.P.G., 2010. "Does Contract Complexity Limit Opportunities? Vertical Organization and Flexibility," ERIM Inaugural Address Series Research in Management EIA-2010-044-STR, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam..
    17. De Marchi, Mario & Napolitano, Giovanni & Taccini, Piero, 1996. "Testing a model of technological trajectories," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 13-23, January.
    18. Márcia Siqueira Rapini, 2005. "Interação universidade-empresa no Brasil: evidências do diretório dos grupos de pesquisa do CNPq," Textos para Discussão Cedeplar-UFMG td251, Cedeplar, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais.
    19. Ewa Kopczynska & Joao J. Ferreira, 2020. "Smart Specialization as a New Strategic Framework: Innovative and Competitive Capacity in European Context," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 11(2), pages 530-557, June.
    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

    Keywords

    research and development (R&D); peer review of R&D projects; project portfolio; portfolio-based approach; research performance evaluation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O20 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Development Planning and Policy - - - General
    • O21 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Development Planning and Policy - - - Planning Models; Planning Policy
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D

    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:hig:fsight:v:9:y:2015:i:2:p:38-43. 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: Nataliya Gavrilicheva or Mikhail Salazkin (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/hsecoru.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.