Journal of Korean Society of Industrial and Systems Engineering (산업경영시스템학회지)

Society of Korea Industrial and System Engineering (한국산업경영시스템학회)
권호 표지

An Ontological Approach to Select R&D Evaluation Metrics

온톨로지 기반 연구개발 평가지표 선정기법

  • Lee, Hee-Jung (Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Daegu University)
  • 이희정 (대구대학교 산업시스템공학과)
  • Received : 2009.09.19
  • Accepted : 2010.02.25
  • Published : 2010.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Performance management is very popular in business area and seems to be an exciting topic. Despite significant research efforts and myriads of performance metrics, performance management today as a rigorous approach is still in an immature state and metrics are often selected based on intuitive and heuristic approach. In a R&D sector, the difficulty to select the proper performance metrics is even more increasing due to the natural characteristics of R&D such as unique or domain-specific problems. In this paper, we present a way of presenting R&D performance framework using ontology language. Based on this, the specific metrics can be derived by reusing or inheriting the context in the framework. The proposed ontological framework is formalized using OWL(Ontology Web Language) and metrics selection rules satisfying the characteristics of R&D are represented in SWRL(Semantic Web Rule Language). Actual metrics selection procedure is carried out using JESS rule engine, a plug-in to Prot$\acute{e}$g$\acute{e}$, and illustrated with an example, incorporating a prevalent R&D performance model : TVP(Technology Value Pyramid).

Keywords

References

  1. 노상규, 박진수; "인터넷 진화의열쇠-온톨로지, 가즈토이",2007,
  2. 이정원; "R&D평가 시스템의 이론적 체계 구축 및 적용방안에 관한 연구", STEPI( 과학기술정책연구원), 2000.
  3. 이희정, 김승동; "연구개발 성과관리 체계구축-실용적접근법", 한국산업경영 시스템학회, 2008년도 추계학술대회 발표논문집, 2008.
  4. Brown, W. B. and Gobeli, D.; "Observations on the measurement of R&D productivity: a case study," IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management, 39(4): 1992.
  5. Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J., and Kleinschmidt, E. J.; Portfolio Management for New Product, 2nd ed. New York : Perseus Publishing, 2002.
  6. Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J., and Kleinsιhmidt, E. J.; "Benchmarking best NPD practice - Part I, II and III," Research Technology Management, 47(1) : 2004.
  7. Drongelen, I. and Cook, A.; "Design principles for development of measurement systems for research and development processes," R&D Management, 27(4): 1997.
  8. Eilat, H., Golany, B., and Shtub, A.; "R&D project evaluation:An integrated DEA and balanced scorecard approach," Omega-The International Journal of Management Science 36, 2008.
  9. Grosof, B. N., Horrokcs, I., Volz, R., and Decker, S.; Description logic programs: Combining logic program with description logic, 20th International WWW Conference, 48-57, ACM, 2003.
  10. Gruber, T. R.; "A translation approach to portable ontology specification," International Journal of Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-Based Systems, 5(2) : 199-220, 1991
  11. Hauser, J. R.; "Research, Development and engineering metrics," Management Science, 44(12) : 1998.
  12. Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P. F., Boley, H., and Tabet, S.; "SWRL : a semantic web rule language combining OWL and RuleML," http://www.w3.org/Submission/2004/SUBM-SWRL -20040521/, 2004.
  13. Jess Rule Engine, http://herzberg.ca.sandia.gov.
  14. Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P.; "The balanced scorecard - measures that drive performance," Harvard Business Review, 70(1/2) : 1992.
  15. Kerssens-van Drongelen, I. C. and Bilderbeek, J.; "R&D Performance measurement: more than choosing a set of metrics," R&D Management, 29(1) : 1999.
  16. Kerssens-van Drongelen, I. C., Nixon, B., and Pearson, A.; "Performance measurement in industrial R&D," International Journal of Management Reviews, 2(2) : 2000.
  17. Kim, B. and Oh, H.; "Economic compensation compositions preferred by R&D personnel of different R&D types and intrinsic values," R&D Management, 32(1) : 2002.
  18. Leifer, R. and Triscari, T.; "Rsearch versus development : differences and similarities," IEEE transactions on Engineering Management, 34(2) : 1987.
  19. Meyer, M. H., Tertzakian, P., and Utterback, J. M.; "Metrics for Managing Research and Development in the Context of the Product Family," Management Science, 43(1) : 88-111, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.43.1.88
  20. Meyersdorf, D. and Dori, D.; "System modeling of the R&D domain through the object-process methodology : a practical tool to help R&D satisfy its customers' needs," R&D Management, 27(4) : 1997.
  21. Moser, M. R.; "Measuring performance in R&D settings," Research Management, 28(5) : 1985.
  22. Pappas, R. A. and Remer, D. S.; "Measuring R&D productivity," Research Management, 16(3) : 1985.
  23. PROTEGE, Protege ontology modeling tool, http://protege. stanford.edu/, 2007.
  24. Schainblatt, A. H.; "How companies measure the productivity of engineers and scientists," Research Management, 25(3): 1982.
  25. Smith, M. K., Welty, C., and McGuinness, D. L.; "OWL Web ontology language guide, W3C recommendation," http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/ REC-owl-guide-20040210/, 2004.
  26. Tipping, J. W., Zeffren, E., and Fusfeld, A. R.; "Assessing the Value of Your Technology," Research Technology Management, 38(5) : 1995.
  27. TVP 2.0, Technology Value Program, Industrial Research Institute, http.//www.iriinc.org/, 2008.
  28. Wayne G., B. and Noah, P. B.; "Utilizing the balanced scorecard for R&D performance measurement," R&D Management, 34(3) : 2004.
  29. Werner, B. M. and Sounder, W. E.; "Measuring R&D performance- state of the art," Research-Technology Management, Martch-Arpril, 1997.
  30. Wilson D. K., Mueser, R., and Raelin, J. A.; "New look at performance appraisal for scientists and engineers," Research-Technology Management, 37(4) : 1994.
  31. Yang, C. L., Chuang, S. P., and Huang, R. H.; "Manufacturing evaluation system based on AHP/ANP approach for wafer fabricating industry," Expert Systems with Applications, 36 : 2009.