Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The R&D logic model: Does it really work? An empirical verification using successive binary logistic regression models

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present study examines that a research and development (R&D) performance creation process conforms to the stepwise chain structure of a typical R&D logic model regarding a national technology innovation R&D program. Based on a series of successive binary logistic regression models newly proposed in the present study, a sample of n = 929 completed government-sponsored R&D projects was analyzed empirically. Sensitivity analyses are summarized where the performance creation success probability is predicted for some key R&D performance factors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albert, M., Avery, D., Narin, F., & McAllister, P. (1991). Direct validation of citation counts as indicators of industrially import patents. Research Policy, 20(3), 251–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Åström, T., Jansson, T., Mattsson, P., Faugert, S., Hellman, J. & Arnold, E. (2010). Summary impact analysis of support for strategic development areas in the Swedish manufacturing industry. VINNOVA Analysis VA 2010:07, Sweden: VINNOVA.

  • Bacchiocchi, E., & Montobbio, F. (2009). Knowledge diffusion from university and public research. A comparison between US, Japan and Europe using patent citations. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(2), 1169–1181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belderbos, R., Carree, M., & Lokshin, B. (2004). Cooperative R&D and firm performance. Research Policy, 33(10), 1477–1492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berchicci, L. (2013). Towards an open R&D system: Internal R&D investment, external knowledge acquisition and innovative performance. Research Policy, 42(1), 117–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bickman, L. (1987). The functions of program theory. Special Issue: Using Program Theory in Evaluation, New Directions for Program Evaluation, 1987(33), 5–18.

  • Bitman, W. R., & Sharif, N. (2008). A conceptual framework for ranking R&D projects. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(2), 267–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branstetter, L. & Ogura, Y. (2005). Is academic science driving a surge in industrial innovation? Evidence from patent citations. NBER working paper, no. 11561.

  • Chen, C.-T., Chien, C.-F., Lin, M.-H., & Wang, J.-T. (2004). Using DEA to evaluate R&D performance of the computers and peripherals firms in Taiwan. International Journal of Business, 9(4), 347–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, K. H., & Guan, J. C. (2012). Measuring the efficiency of China’s regional innovation systems: An application of network DEA. Regional Studies, 46(3), 355–377.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, X., Wang, X., & Wu, D. D. (2011). Analysing firm performance in Chinese IT industry: DEA Malmquist productivity measure. International Journal of Information Technology and Management, 10(1), 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, W. W., Seiford, L. M., & Zhu, J. (2004). Handbook on data envelopment analysis. Boston MA: Springer.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Cullmann, A., Schmidt-Ehmcke, J., & Zloczysti, P. (2012). R&D efficiency and barriers to entry: A two stage semi-parametric DEA approach. Oxford Economic Papers, 64(1), 176–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eilat, H., Golany, B., & Shtub, A. (2008). R&D project evaluation: An integrated DEA and balanced scorecard approach. Omega, 36(5), 895–912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elg, L. & Håkansson, S. (2012). Impacts of innovation policy—Lessons from VINNOVA’s impact studies. VINNOVA Analysis VA 2012:01, Sweden: VINNOVA.

  • Esteve-Pérez, S., & Rodríguez, D. (2013). The dynamics of exports and R&D in SMEs. Small Business Economics, 41(1), 219–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Färe, R., & Grosskopf, S. (2000). Network DEA. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 34(1), 35–49.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Farris, J. A., Groesbeck, R. L., Aken, E. M. V., & Letens, G. (2006). Evaluating the relative performance of engineering design projects: A case study using data envelopment analysis. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(3), 471–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritsch, M., & Lukas, R. (2001). Who cooperates on R&D? Research Policy, 30(2), 297–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Georghiou, L. (1999). Socio-economic effects of collaborative R&D-European experiences. Journal of Technology Transfer, 24(1), 69–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geuna, A., Salter, A. J., & Steinmueller, W. E. (2003). Science and innovation: Rethinking the rationales for funding and governance, new horizons in the economics of innovation. Northampton MA: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, W. H. (2003). Econometric analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gronum, S., Verreynne, M.-L., & Kastelle, T. (2012). The role of networks in small and medium-sized enterprise innovation and firm performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 50(2), 257–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guan, J., & Chen, K. (2010). Modeling macro-R&D production frontier performance: An application to Chinese province-level R&D. Scientometrics, 82(1), 165–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guan, J. C., & Chen, K. H. (2012). Modeling the relative efficiency of national innovation systems. Research Policy, 41(1), 102–115.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Gujarati, D. N. (1995). Basic econometrics (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hashimoto, A., & Haneda, S. (2008). Measuring the change in R&D efficiency of the Japanese pharmaceutical industry. Research Policy, 37(10), 1829–1836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. G. (2000). Applied logistic regression (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, F. M., & Hsueh, C. C. (2009). Measuring relative efficiency of government-sponsored R&D projects: A three-stage approach. Evaluation and Program Planning, 32(2), 178–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, A. G. (2009). The regionalization of knowledge flows in East Asia: Evidence from patent citations data. World Development, 37(9), 1465–1477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, A. G., & Jaffe, A. (2003). Patent citations and international knowledge flow: The cases of Korea and Taiwan. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(6), 849–880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IBM SPSS (2009). PASW Statistics Release 18. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2002). Patents, citations and innovations: A window on the knowledge economy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J., Lee, S. J., & Marschke, G. (2009). Relation of firm size to R&D productivity. International Journal of Business and Economics, 8(1), 7–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology (KEIT). (2010). 2010 Performance investigation and analysis of knowledge economy technology innovation program. Korea: KEIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology (KEIT). (2011). 2011 Performance investigation and analysis of knowledge economy technology innovation program. Korea: KEIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology (KEIT). (2013). 2012 Performance investigation and analysis of knowledge economy technology innovation program. Korea: KEIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korea Institute of S&T Evaluation and Planning (KISTEP). (2011). International case studies on major issues for performance evaluation system improvement. Korea: KISTEP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information (KISTI). (2008). Law-enforcement ordinance-enforcement regulations. http://www.ntis.go.kr/ThMain.do. Accessed August 1, 2014.

  • Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2004). Searching high and low: What types of firms use universities as a source of innovation? Research Policy, 33(8), 1201–1215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H. (2015). Uncovering the multidisciplinary nature of technology management: Journal citation network analysis. Scientometrics, 102(1), 51–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H. Y., & Park, Y. T. (2005). An international comparison of R&D efficiency: DEA approach. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 13(2), 207–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H., Park, Y., & Choi, H. (2009). Comparative evaluation of performance of national R&D programs with heterogeneous objectives: A DEA approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 196(3), 847–855.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Lenihan, H. (2011). Enterprise policy evaluation: Is there a ‘new’ way of doing it? Evaluation and Program Planning, 34(4), 323–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang, L., Li, Z.-Q., Cook, W. D., & Zhu, J. (2011). Data envelopment analysis efficiency in two-stage networks with feedback. IIE Transactions, 43(5), 309–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linton, J. D., Walsh, S. T., & Morabito, J. (2002). Analysis, ranking and selection of R&D projects in a portfolio. R&D Management, 32(2), 139–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Löthgren, M., & Tambour, M. (1999). Productivity and customer satisfaction in Swedish Pharmacies: A DEA Network model. European Journal of Operational Research, 115(3), 449–458.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Mairesse, J., & Mohnen, P. (2002). Accounting for innovation and measuring innovativeness: An illustrative framework and application. American Economic Review, 92(2), 226–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, J. A., & Jordan, G. B. (1999). Logic models: A tool for telling your program’s performance story. Evaluation and Program Planning, 22(1), 65–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meng, W., Hu, Z. H., & Liu, W. B. (2006). Efficiency evaluation of basic research in China. Scientometrics, 69(1), 85–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Knowledge Economy (MKE). (2008). 2007 Electric power industry R&D programs. Korea: MKE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Knowledge Economy and Korea Institute for Advancement of Technology (MKE KIAT). (2012). 2012 Guideline of knowledge economy R&D performance index design. Korea: MKE KIAT.

  • Ministry of Science and Technology and Office of Science and Technology Innovation (MST OSTI). (2008). 2008 Internal evaluation manual of national R&D programs. Korea: MST OSTI.

  • Minitab. (2005). Minitab Release 14.20 StatGuide. State College PA: Minitab Inc.

  • Montgomery, D. C., Peck, E. A., & Vining, G. G. (2001). Introduction to linear regression analysis (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Mullahy, J. (1986). Specification and testing in some modified count data models. Journal of Econometrics, 33(3), 341–365.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Narin, F., & Noma, E. (1985). Is technology becoming science? Scientometrics, 7(3–6), 369–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Office of Management and Budget and Office of Science and Technology Policy (OMB OSTP). (2012). Memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies, subject: Science and technology priorities for the FY 2014 budget. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/. Accessed August 1, 2014.

  • Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). (2012). Innovation for America’s economy, America’s energy, and american skills: Science, technology, innovation, and STEM education in the 2013 budget. http://www.ostp.gov/. Accessed August 1, 2014.

  • Ortega-Argilés, R., Vivarelli, M., & Voigt, P. (2009). R&D in SMEs: A paradox? Small Business Economics, 33(1), 3–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osawa, Y., & Murakami, M. (2002). Development and application of a new methodology of evaluating industrial R&D projects. R&D Management, 32(1), 79–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, S. (2014). Analyzing the efficiency of small and medium-sized enterprises of a national technology innovation research and development program. SpringerPlus, 3(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Revilla, E., Sarkis, J., & Modrego, A. (2003). Evaluating performance of public-private research collaborations: A DEA analysis. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 54(2), 165–174.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Robin, S., & Schubert, T. (2013). Cooperation with public research institutions and success in innovation: Evidence from France and Germany. Research Policy, 42(1), 149–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roper, S., Hewitt-Dundas, N., & Love, J. H. (2004). An ex ante evaluation framework for the regional benefits of publicly supported R&D projects. Research Policy, 33(3), 487–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruegg, R. (2006). Bridging from project case study to portfolio analysis in a public R&D program: A framework for evaluation and introduction to a composite performance rating system. Gaithersburg, MD: Economic Assessment Office, Advanced Technology Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce.

  • Ruegg, R. & Feller, I. (2003). A toolkit for evaluating public R&D investment: Models, methods and findings from ATP’s first decade. Gaithersburg, MD: Economic Assessment Office, Advanced Technology Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce.

  • Sharma, S., & Thomas, V. J. (2008). Inter-country R&D efficiency analysis: An application of data envelopment analysis. Scientometrics, 76(3), 483–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shipp, S., Chang, C. & Wisniewski, L. (2005). Evaluation best practices and results: The advanced technology program. Gaithersburg, MD: Economic Assessment Office, Advanced Technology Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce.

  • STAR METRICS. (2014). https://www.starmetrics.nih.gov/. Accessed August 1, 2014.

  • Stephan, P. E. (2010). Chapter 5. The economics of science. In B. H. Hall & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of innovation (Vol. 1, pp. 217–273). Boston, MA: North Holland.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, H. X., Ujum, E. A., Choong, K. F., & Ratnavelu, K. (2015). Impact analysis of domestic and international research collaborations: A Malaysian case study. Scientometrics, 102(1), 885–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, V., Sharma, S., & Jain, S. K. (2011). Using patents and publications to assess R&D efficiency in the states of the USA. World Patent Information, 33(1), 4–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • W. K. Kellogg Foundation (WKKF). (2004). W. K. Kellogg Foundation Logic Development Guide. Battle Creek MI.

  • Wang, E. C., & Huang, W. (2007). Relative efficiency of R&D activities: A cross-country study accounting for environmental factors in the DEA approach. Research Policy, 36(2), 260–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wholey, J. S. (1983). Evaluation and effective public management. Boston, MA: Little Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wholey, J. S. (1987). Evaluability assessment: Developing program theory. Special Issue: Using Program Theory in Evaluation, New Directions for Program Evaluation, 1987(33), 77–92.

  • Winkelmann, R., & Zimmermann, K. F. (1995). Recent developments in count data modelling: Theory and application. Journal of Economic Surveys, 9(1), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, W., Tsai, H., Cheng, K., & Lai, M. (2006). Assessment of intellectual capital management in Taiwanese IC design companies: Using DEA and the Malmquist productivity index. R&D Management, 36(5), 531–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author acknowledges the contribution of the following institutions who permit data available in the present study such as the Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology (KEIT), the Korea National IT Industry Promotion Agency (NIPA) and the Ilshin Accounting Corporation. This study was partially supported by Baekseok University Research Grant.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business Administration, Baekseok University, Cheonan, 330-704, Korea

    Sungmin Park

Authors
  1. Sungmin Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sungmin Park.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Park, S. The R&D logic model: Does it really work? An empirical verification using successive binary logistic regression models. Scientometrics 105, 1399–1439 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1764-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1764-6

Keywords

JEL Classification

Mathematics Subject Classification

Search

Navigation