How to measure the performance of a Collaborative Research Center

Abstract

New Public Management helps universities and research institutions to perform in a highly competitive research environment. Evaluating publicly financed research improves transparency, helps in reflection and self-assessment, and provides information for strategic decision making. In this paper we provide empirical evidence using data from a Collaborative Research Center (CRC) on financial inputs and research output from 2005 to 2016. After selecting performance indicators suitable for a CRC, we describe main properties of the data using visualization techniques. To study the relationship between the dimensions of research performance, we use a time fixed effects panel data model and fixed effects Poisson model. With the help of year dummy variables, we show how the pattern of research productivity changes over time after controlling for staff and travel costs. The joint depiction of the time fixed effects and the research project's life cycle allows a better understanding of the development of the number of discussion papers over time.

Research performance evaluation model in university: evidence from Indonesia

“…(2018). Tahmooresnejad and Beaudry (2015) also found an increase in performance with university and industry partnerships funding, in line with those found by Zharova et al . (2018) and Muscio et al .…”

“…In contrast, government funds reflect input variables affecting performance, which was reviewed by Lee and Kim (2019) and Menter et al (2018). Tahmooresnejad and Beaudry (2015) also found an increase in performance with university and industry partnerships funding, in line with those found by Zharova et al (2018) and Muscio et al (2016).…”

“…In addition, a good evaluation and reporting system should also be conducted to obtain accurate information in planning follow-up programs. Zharova et al . (2018) stated that with a good evaluation, research performance in the form of citations per publication would increase its efficiency.…”

Higher education research performance parameters classified by systems theory: antecedents for the development of assessment models

“…HR is related to the number of researchers at the university (Frenken et al , 2017; Bonaccorsi and Secondi, 2017), researcher quality (Abramo et al , 2016, 2019; Docampo and Cram, 2016; Gulbrandsen and Thune, 2017; Tavares et al , 2019; White et al , 2012), visiting researcher (Carayol and Matt, 2006) and the involvement of young researchers including students (Aprile et al , 2020; Frenken et al , 2017; Grisorio and Prota, 2019). Research funding in universities comes from government grants (Lee and Kim, 2019; Menter et al , 2018) and nongovernment grants (Muscio et al , 2016; Zharova et al , 2018), while the aspects of facilities include libraries (Swiatek, 2019) and laboratories (Bonaccorsi and Secondi, 2017; Laredo and Mustar, 2000).…”

“…Verbree et al (2015) grouped the process dimensions that affect research performance into three dimensions, namely, management, leadership and collaboration. The management dimension consists of administration (Lou et al , 2018; Olsson and Meek, 2013; Zharova et al , 2018), HR development (Croucher et al , 2017; Horta et al , 2018; Nguyen, 2015), knowledge management (Ceballos et al , 2017; Diezmann, 2018) and award system (Bak and Kim, 2018; Menter et al , 2018). The leadership dimension consists of the leader's experience in research or industry (Lou et al , 2018; Rybnicek et al , 2019) and a clear strategic plan/research agenda (Diezmann, 2018; Nguyen and Van Gramberg, 2017; Tagliaventi and Carli, 2019).…”