Research Article Published 10 December 2015

A Review of Research and Development Evaluation Across the Globe

How to Cite

How to Cite

Osman, N. H., & Nura, A. B. A. (2015). A Review of Research and Development Evaluation Across the Globe. Journal of Business Management and Accounting, 5(1), 77-89. https://doi.org/10.32890/jbma2015.5.0.8862
Nor Hasni Osman
School of Technology Management and Logistics, College of Business, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia
Abu Bakar Allumi Nura
School of Technology Management and Logistics, College of Business, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia
Full text
PDF View full text 240 KB · 13 pages XML JATS full text 60 KB · machine readable HTML Read online 37 KB
DOI 10.32890/jbma2015.5.0.8862 Cite this article
Share this article
Citations
1
OpenAlex, highest of the sources checked
Reads
420
Abstract + full text
Downloads
313 +4
PDF and XML
Percentile
89th
By citations, works of the same year

Article

Abstract

In  view  of  the  present  rapid  changing  of  technology  and  economic  landscapes,  the Research and Development (R&D) field has garnered more attention than before throughout the world. Industrial innovation in this knowledge-driven era demands R&D as the undisputable key for improvement  and  to  maintain  competitiveness.  Parallel  to  the  industrial  and  economic growths,  more  and  more  researchers  and  skilled  workers are  required  to  fill  in  the  specific fields  all  over  the  globe.  The  growing  numbers  of  R&D facilitiesand  personnel,  however,  is unable  to  provide  assurance  that  improvement would  take  place  after  a  particular  research result  is  implemented.  R&D  laboratories themselves  are  systems  that  process  inputs  and generate  outputs,  where  in  the  process,  inevitable challenges  are  encountered  to  ensure  that the  task  is  not  only  capable  of solving  particular  problems,  but  also  to  ensure  positive  and innovative   outcomes.   R&D is   also   subject   to   performance   analysis   to   measure   the effectiveness,  accomplishments,  and  productivity  amongst  others,  because  performance  is  an importance  element  in grant  disbursement.  In  doing  so,  R&D  evaluation  is  an  important aspect  and  practised in  most  parts  of  the  world  with  different  methods  and  strategies.  This paper  reports an  R&D  overview  and  explores  the  need  of  the  global  community  for  post decision evaluation to ensure that the decision is sustainable in the long run.

Keywords
R&D post decision evaluation R&D lab performance analysis

Metrics & impact

Citations by source

Harvested 15-09-2026

Counts differ by index because each source crawls a different corpus. Crossref counts only registered reference lists; Google Scholar includes theses, preprints and grey literature.

OpenAlex
1
Open corpus, updated daily View →
OpenCitations
0
Open references only View →
Crossref
0
Deposited reference lists only View →
Scopus
0 Not indexed
Indexed titles only View →
Google Scholar
Publishes no citation count that can be read automatically.
Includes theses and preprints Search →
Dimensions
Publishes no citation count that can be read automatically.
Includes policy documents Search →

Citations over time

New citations recorded in each year, as reported by OpenAlex.

1
0
0
0
0
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Reads & downloads

Abstract views 420
PDF downloads 313
XML downloads 0
Full-text HTML 0
Counted under COUNTER Release 5 rules; known robots excluded.

Attention beyond citation

Citation percentile 89th
Field-weighted citation impact 0.17
Works this article cites 23

From OpenAlex. A field-weighted impact of 1.00 is the world average for work of the same field, type and year. No Altmetric key is configured, so news, policy and social attention are not shown.

Identifiers
DOI · 10.32890/jbma2015.5.0.8862
OpenAlex · W4320164220

References

References 52
Deposited to Crossref with the article DOI
  1. Barnowe, J. T., (1975). Leadership and performance outcomes in research organisations: The supervisor of scientists as a source of assistance. Organisational Behavior and Human Performance, 14(2), 264-280.
  2. Berven, B., (2011). New DOE funding to accelerate ORNL advanced vehicle R&D. Energy and Environmental Sciences Quaterly, 3, 1-16.
  3. Brown, M. G., and Svenson, R. A., (1988). Measuring R&D productivity. Research technology management, 31(4), 11-15.
  4. Brown, M. G., and Svenson, R. A., (1998). Measuring R&D productivity. Research technology management, 41(6), 30.
  5. Brown, W. B., and Gobeli, D., (1992). Observations on the measurement of R&D productivity: a case study. Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on, 39(4), 325-331.
  6. Brumm, J. H. J., (1986). Bureaucratic Competition and Weapon System Procurement. Defense Management Journal, 13-17.
  7. Chiesa, V., Coughlan, P., and Voss, C. A., (1996). Development of a technical innovation audit. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13(2), 105-136.
  8. Chiesa, V., and Masella, C., (1996). Searching for an effective measure of R&D performance. Management Decision, 34(7), 49-57.
  9. Collier, B., DeMarco, T., and Fearey, P., (1996). A defined process for project post mortem review. Software, IEEE, 13(4), 65-72.
  10. Cooper, R. G., and Kleinschmidt, E. J., (1988). Resource allocation in the new product process. Industrial Marketing Management, 17(3), 249-262.
  11. Cordero, R., (1990). The measurement of innovation performance in the firm: An overview. Research Policy, 19(2), 185-192.
  12. Danila, N., (1989). Strategic evaluation and selection of R&D projects. R&D Management, 19(1), 47-62.
  13. Driva, H., Pawar, K., and Menon, U., (2000). Measuring product development performance in manufacturing organisations. International Journal of Production Economics, 63(2), 147-159.
  14. Frost, P. A., and Whitley, R., (1971). Communication patterns in research laboratory. R&D Management, 1(2), 71-79.
  15. Godener, A., and Söderquist, K. E., (2004). Use and impact of performance measurement results in R&D and NPD: an exploratory study. R&D Management, 34(2), 191-219.
  16. Godin, B., (2001). Tradition and Innovation: The Historical Contingency of R&D Statistical Classifications. Project on the History and Sociology of S&T Statistics, Working Paper(11).
  17. Gold, B., (1989). Some key problems in evaluating R&D performance. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 6(1), 59-70.
  18. Hauser, J. R., (1998). Research, development, and engineering metrics. Management Science, 44(12-part-1), 1670-1689.
  19. Hauser, J. R., and Zettelmeyer, F., (1997). Metrics to evaluate R, D&E. Research technology management, 40(4), 32.
  20. Keller, R. T., and Holland, W. E., (1982). The measurement of performance among research and development professional employees: A longitudinal analysis. Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions, 29(2), 54-58.
  21. Kerssens-van Drongelen, I. C., (1999). Systematic Design of R & D Performance Measurement Systems. (Doctoral Dissertation), University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.
  22. Kerssens-van Drongelen, I. C., and Cooke, A., (1997). Design principles for the development of measurement systems for research and development processes. R&D Management, 27(4), 345-357.
  23. Kim, B., and Oh, H., (2002). An effective R&D performance measurement system: survey of Korean R&D researchers. Omega, 30(1), 19-31.
  24. Kralj, B., (2011). Business decision making: the different way. http://www.bpmsecrets@ gmail.com
  25. Krishna, V., Patra, S. K., and Bhattacharya, S., (2012). Internationalisation of R&D and global nature of innovation: Emerging trends in India. Science Technology & Society, 17 (2), 165-199.
  26. Kumpe, T., and Bolwijn, P. T., (1994). Toward the innovative firm-Challenge for R&D management. Research technology management, 37(1), 38.
  27. Lee, M., Son, B., and Lee, H., (1996). Measuring R&D effectiveness in Korean companies. Research technology management, 39(6), 28.
  28. Liao, Z., and Greenfield, P. F., (2000). The synergy of corporate R&D and competitive strategies: An exploratory study in Australian high-technology companies. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 11(1), 93-107.
  29. Liberatore, M. J., (1987). An extension of the analytic hierarchy process for industrial R&D project selection and resource allocation. Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on(1), 12-18.
  30. Loch, C. H., and Tapper, U., (2002). Implementing a strategy‐driven performance measurement system for an applied research group. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(3), 185-198.
  31. Menke, M. M., (1997). Managing R&D for competitive advantage. Research technology management, 40(6), 40.
  32. Meyer, M.H., Tertzakian, P., and Utterback, J. M., (1997). Metrics for managing research and development in the context of the product family. Management Science, 43(1), 88-111.
  33. Mitroff, I., (1997). Uncommon Wisdom: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
  34. Moser, M. R., (1985). Measuring performance in R&D settings. Research Management, 28(5), 31-33.
  35. National Science Board., (2001). Federal research resources: a process for setting priorities. Washington, DC.
  36. Nill, J., Landwehr, A., Carabias, V., and Gérard, C., (2009). Analysis of policy mixes to foster R&D investment and to contribute to the ERA. Luxembourg.
  37. Ojanen, V., and Vuola, O., (2005). Coping with the multiple dimensions of R&D performance analysis. International Journal of Technology Management, 33(2-3), 279-290.
  38. Pappas, R. A., and Remer, D. S., (1985). Measuring R&D productivity. Research-Technology Management, 28(3), 15-22.
  39. Patterson, W. C., (1983). Evaluating R&D performance at alcoa laboratories. Research Management, 26(2), 23-27.
  40. Pawar, K. S., and Driva, H., (1999). Performance measurement for product design and development in a manufacturing environment. International Journal of Production Economics, 60, 61-68.
  41. Pearson, A., Nixon, W., and Kerssens-van Drongelen, I. C., (2000). R&D as a business – what are the implications for performance measurement? R&D Management, 30(4), 355-366.
  42. Pillai, A. S., and Rao, K. S., (1996). Performance monitoring in R&D projects. R&D Management, 26(1), 57-65.
  43. Poh, K., Ang, B., and Bai, F., (2001). A comparative analysis of R&D project evaluation methods. R&D Management, 31(1), 63-75.
  44. Schainblatt, A. H., (1981). Measuring the productivity of scientists and engineers in R & D: a state of the practice review: The Urban Institute.
  45. Schainblatt, A. H., (1982). How companies measure the productivity of engineers and scientists. Research Management, 25(3), 10-18.
  46. Schmidt, R. L., and Freeland, J. R., (1992). Recent progress in modeling R&D project-selection processes. Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on, 39(2), 189-201.
  47. Srinivas, H., (2010). Information for decision-making. http://www.mindtools.com
  48. Stahl, M. J., and Steger, J. A., (1977). Measuring innovation and productivity: a peer rating approach. Research Management, 20(1), 35-38.
  49. UNESCO., (1978, 28 November). Recommendation concerning the international standardization of statistics on science and techology. Paris.
  50. Wacker, J. G., (1998). A definition of theory: research guidelines for different theory-building research methods in operations management. Journal of Operations Management, 16(4), 361-385.
  51. Werner, B. M., and Souder, W. E., (1997). Measuring R&D performance--state of the art. Research technology management, 40(2), 34.
  52. Zedtwitz, M. V., (2002). The foreign R&D in China: The case of telecommunications. University of St Gallen-Rutgers. Tsinghua.

Most read articles by the same author(s)