Asian Journal of Innovation and Policy

Asian Society for Innovation and Policy (아시아기술혁신학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Measurement of Public Research Outcomes: A Technology Valuation Method

  • Park, Jung-Min (Strategy and Planning Division, Korea Food Research Institute) ;
  • Lim, Seong-Il (Strategy and Planning Division, Korea Food Research Institute) ;
  • Seol, Sung-Soo (Department of Economics, Hannam University)
  • Received : 2017.07.31
  • Accepted : 2017.08.17
  • Published : 2017.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This article proposes a logic model for assessing the performance of the outcome of public research as a technology valuation method. It consists of two parts and eight steps. The first part is a scoring system and the second part is a validation process of the performance index derived from scoring by valuation method. The scoring in the first part generally requires a focus group method to find out the value drivers and make an evaluation table. The reason why we call it the technology valuation method is that the first part is derived from the simple evaluation of technology value using checklists for value drive. The second part is the regular technology valuation process. The model is designed for the measurement of unquantifiable outcome. Is knowledge or scientific outcome comparable to the measured outcome? If possible, how big is the unquantifiable outcome? This model is based on financial valuation techniques with clear or acceptable market data. Therefore, it cannot work solely for unquantifiable outcomes without comparable measurable outcomes, unlike economic valuation.

Keywords

References

  1. Alexander, D. (1962) Valuations of Intangibles, Institute on Federal Taxation, New York University: NY.
  2. Boer, P.F. (1999) Valuation of Technology: Business and Financial Issues in R&D, Wiley and Sons: NY.
  3. Boer, P.F. (2000) Valuation of technology using real options, Research Technology Management, July-August, 26-30.
  4. Bozeman, B. (2003) Public Value Mapping of Science Outcomes: Theory and Method, School of Public Policy, Georgia Tech.
  5. Bozeman, B. and Kingsley, G. (1997) R&D Value mapping: a new approach to case study-based evaluation, Journal of Technology Transfer, 22, 33-41. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02509643.
  6. Bozeman, B. and Sarewitz, D. (2011) Public value mapping and science policy evaluation, Minerva , 49, 1-23. DOI 10.1007/s11024-011-9161-7
  7. Brown, M.G. and Svenson, R.A. (1988) Measuring R&D productivity, Research Technology Management, 31(4), 11-15.
  8. Brown, M.G. and Svenson, R.A. (1988) Measuring R&D productivity, Research Technology Management, 41, 30-35. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/095820211X13118583635756
  9. Donovan, C. and Hanney, S. (2011) The 'Payback Framework' explained, Research Evaluation, 20(3), 181-183. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820211X13118583635756
  10. Faulkner, T.W. (1996) Appling options thinking to R&D valuation, Research Technology Management, 50-56.
  11. Hawkes, C. (2004) Nutrition Labels and Health Claims: The Global Regulatory Environment, WHO.
  12. Joly, P.B., Colinet, L., Gaunand, A., Lemaire, S. and Matt, M. (2016) Agricultural Research Impact Assessment: Issues, Methods and Challenges, May, OECD.
  13. Kim, G.H. and Seol, S.S. (2015) Valuation of the stabilization plan for the foot and mouth disease burial sites, Environmental Engineering Review, 20(1), 59-63. https://doi.org/10.4491/eer.2014.050
  14. Kostoff, R.N. (1994) The Handbook of Research Impact Assessment, Arlington, VA: Office of Naval Research.
  15. Kwak, C.G., Chang, J.G., Park, J.M. and Park, J.H. (2012) A study on the establishment of strategic functions of Korea food research institute. (Korean)
  16. Lee, K.H. and Seol, S.S. (2002) A comparison of commercial practices on the valuation of intangibles, Technology Innovation Society Journal, 5(2). (Korean)
  17. McLaughlin, J.A. and Jordan, G.B. (1999) Logic models: a tool for telling your program's performance story, Evaluation and Program Planning, 22(1), 65-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-7189(98)00042-1
  18. Mitchell, G.R. and Hamilton, W. (1988) Managing R&D as a strategic option, Research Technology Management, May-June, 15-22.
  19. Nichols, N. (1994) Scientific management at merck: an interview with CFO Judy Lewent, Harvard Business Review, January-February, 88-99.
  20. Ojanen, V. and Vuola, O. (2003) Categorizing the measures and evaluation methods of R&D performance - A state-of-the-art review on R&D performance analysis, Telecom Business Research Center Lappeenranta, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Working Papers 16.
  21. Ottoo, R.E. (1998) 'Valuation of internal growth opportunities: the case of a biotechnology company' the quarterly review of economics and finance, 38, 615-633. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1062-9769(99)80093-3
  22. Pappas, R.A. and Remer, D.S. (1985) Measuring R&D productivity, Research Management, 28(3), 15-22.
  23. Parish, T.D. (1998) The technology value pyramid, national academy of engineering, science and medicine (ed.) Assessing the Value of Research in the Chemical Sciences, 50-125.
  24. Park, J.M. and Seol, S.S. (2006) Valuation of a biotechnology using real options-human genom projects for cancer, Technology Innovation Society Journal, 9(1), 3.
  25. Park, S.M. (2011) Models and perspectives of outcome assessment, in Park, S.M., Sul, W.S. (eds.) Handbook on R&D Performance Evaluation, Seoul: Korea Studies Information Co.
  26. Patterson, W.C. (1983) Evaluating R&D performance at Alchore Labs, Research Management, 3.
  27. Ranftl, R.M. (1974) R&D Productivity, Hughes Aircraft Company.
  28. 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, US: Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
  29. Ruegg, R. and Feller, I. (2003) A Toolkit for Evaluating Public R&D Investment: Models, Methods, and Findings from ATP's First Decade (grant/contract report), Gaithersburg: National Institute of Standards and Technology.
  30. Schumann, Jr. P.A., Ramsley, D. and Prestwood, D.C.L. (1995) Measuring R&D performance, Research Technology Management, 38(3), 45-54.
  31. Seol, S.S. and Yoo, C.S. (2002) Professional real options models for the valuation of investments and technology, Korea Technology Innovation Society Journal, 5(1), 44-58.
  32. Seol, S.S. and Lee, K.H. (2002) A study on checklists for technology, market and firm analysis, Korea Technology Innovation Society Journal, 5(3), 277-292.
  33. Seol, S.S. (2000a) An analysis of the conceptual framework of valuation of technology, Korea Technology Innovation Society Journal, 3(1), 5-21.
  34. Seol, S.S. (2000b) The concept and analysis of the valuation of technology, Korea Technology Innovation Society Journal, 3(2), 1-13.
  35. Seol, S.S. (2010) Some professional issues on the valuation of technology, International Journal of Technology Marketing, 5(2), 145-162. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTMKT.2010.035694
  36. Seol, S.S. et al. (2017) Economic Effects of Korea Food Research Institute, Korea Valuation Association. (Korean)
  37. Spaapen, J.M. and Van Drooge, L. (2011) Introducing 'productive interactions' in social assessment, Research Evaluation, 20, 211-218. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/095820211X12941371876742
  38. Szakonyi, R. (1994) Measuring R&D effectiveness, Research Technology Management, 37(2), 27-32.
  39. Tipping, J.W., Zeffren, E. and Fusfeld, A.R. (1995) Assessing the value of your technology, Research Technology Management, 38(5), 22-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.1995.11674292
  40. W. K. Kellogg Foundation (2004) W. K. Kellogg Foundation Logic Development Guide, MI Battle Creek.
  41. Werner, B. and Souder, W. (1997) Measuring R&D performance-state of the art, Research Technology Management, 40(2), 34-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.1997.11671115