Assessing Value-Based Plans in Public R&D Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process

There is a need for research regarding how to manage public research and development (R&D) to create societal values. The paper focuses on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in a case study, the microelectronics research center. Twenty-four factors (e.g. mission, internal R&D, collaboration and management-related factors) were constructed in a hierarchy model for assessing three innovation plans: knowledge, societal and commercial orientation. The AHP analysis reveals that commercial orientation has the highest impact score on innovation factors. However, given that the selected case study is a taxpayer-funded public R&D organisation, societal expectations have to be factored into their innovation plans. Hence, the paper provides a sensitivity analysis as a result of which a suggestion is made to increase the priority of collaboration-related factors to improve the impact of societal orientation.

[1]  Y. Rezgui,et al.  Perceiving societal value as the core of innovation management in public research and development organizations , 2010, 2010 IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation & Technology.

[2]  T. Saaty,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1985 .

[3]  T. Saaty,et al.  Why the magic number seven plus or minus two , 2003 .

[4]  B. Cozzarin.  Data and the measurement of R&D program impacts. , 2008, Evaluation and program planning.

[5]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  On the invalidity of fuzzifying numerical judgments in the Analytic Hierarchy Process , 2007, Math. Comput. Model..

[6]  N. Srinivasan,et al.  A model of value assessment in collaborative R&D programs , 2002 .

[7]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process , 2012 .

[8]  D. Mowery.  The changing structure of the US national innovation system: implications for international conflict and cooperation in R&D policy , 1998 .

[9]  P. Trott.  Innovation Management And New Product Development , 2004 .

[10]  M. Nieto,et al.  The importance of diverse collaborative networks for the novelty of product innovation , 2007 .

[11]  Yacine Rezgui,et al.  Value creating construction virtual teams: A case study in the construction sector , 2010 .

[12]  Efraim Turban,et al.  Decision Support and Expert Systems: Management Support Systems , 1990 .

[13]  Yves Pigneur,et al.  Clarifying Business Models: Origins, Present, and Future of the Concept , 2005, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[14]  I. Greener.  Public Management: A Critical Text , 2009 .

[15]  John Bessant,et al.  Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market, and Organizational Change, 2nd Edition , 2001 .

[16]  I. Nonaka,et al.  Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge , 2003 .

[17]  R. Denhardt,et al.  The New Public Service: Serving Rather than Steering , 2000 .

[18]  Stephen C. Hayne,et al.  A comparative analysis of critical issues facing Canadian information systems personnel: a national and global perspective , 2000, Inf. Manag..

[19]  Efraim Turban,et al.  Decision support and expert systems (4th ed.): management support systems , 1995 .

[20]  Kwai-Sang Chin,et al.  An AHP based study of critical factors for TQM implementation in Shanghai manufacturing industries , 2002 .

[21]  B. Burnes.  Managing Change: A Strategic Approach to Organisational Dynamics , 2001 .

[22]  Larisa V. Shavinina.  The international handbook on innovation , 2003 .

[23]  Kuen-Hung Tsai,et al.  Collaborative networks and product innovation performance: Toward a contingency perspective , 2009 .