Research and Development Evaluation Remodelling in Malaysia: An Idealistic Framework
How to Cite
How to Cite
Article
This paper provides an idealistic conceptual framework for Research & Development (R&D) evaluation. R&D is very important in higher level decision making. In Malaysia, though the spending is on increasing term, only a small proportionate of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is allocated to fund R&D as compared to the required tasks in the vast fields of research. A lot of efforts were spent in R&D, the undertakings of which should be monitored and well-funded to ensure the results of the research are considered in making decisions that could be shared, implemented, improvised, and evaluated. Public research which focuses more on educational know-how in the development of human resource/human capital could be assimilated in R&D of private sectors which focus more on scientific, technology, material handling, and information and communication technology (ICT). The more advances occur in science and technology fields, the demand for manpower in the related fields would increase. In spite of this, any improvement from the implemented research result could not be assured even with functional R&D systems if there is no constant evaluation and post decision valuation. The collaboration of public-private R&D institutions would generate a new breed of innovative entrepreneurs that could assist Malaysia to achieve developed nation status as set out in Vision 2020. The outcome of this paper is a proposed model of the Malaysian R&D evaluation in public agencies, private sectors, and universities to construct an idealistic R&D decision evaluation framework for future application. The model presents the interconnected interactions that take place within the stakeholders circle in R&D network. Basically, the model is drawn up under the principle that virtually there are balanced interactions and the interested parties are inter-related.
Metrics & impact
Citations by source
Harvested 15-09-2026Counts differ by index because each source crawls a different corpus. Crossref counts only registered reference lists; Google Scholar includes theses, preprints and grey literature.
Reads & downloads
Attention beyond citation
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.
References
-
Callon, M., Laredo, P., Rabeharisoa, V., Gonard, T., & Leray, T., (1992). The management and evaluation of technological programs and the dynamics of techno-economic networks: The case of the AFME. Research Policy, 21(3), 215-236.
-
Hishamt, E. S., (2010). Global problems, global solutions: towards better global governance. Geneva 21: World Trade Organisation.
-
KISTEP., (2013). http://www.kistep.re.kr/en
-
Kroll, H., Stahlecker, T., Peter, V., and Leon, L. R., (2012). Regional innovation in the innovation union. Directorate-General for research and Innovation Capacities Belgium.
-
Lee, S. H., Cho, H., and Lee, D., (2013). Analysis of performance-improving factors of international R&D collaborations conducted by universities in South Korea. Asian Research Policy, 4, 99-113.
-
Margolis, R. M., and Kammen, D. M., (1999). Underinvestment: the energy technology and R&D policy challenge. Science, 285(5428), 690-692.
-
Othman, N. H., (2009). Public-private collaboration in research and development in Malaysia. Tech Monitor, 19-23.
-
Polanyi, M., (1967). The tacit dimension. London.
-
Tetroe, J. M., Graham, I. D., Foy, R., Robinson, N., Eccles, M. P., Wensing, M., Adily, A., (2008). Health research funding agencies’ support and promotion of knowledge translation: an international study. Milbank Quarterly, 86(1), 125-155.
-
Von Zedtwitz, M., (2002). Organizational learning through post–project reviews in R&D. R&D Management, 32(3), 255-268.