Journal of Korean Institute of Industrial Engineers (대한산업공학회지)

Korean Institute of Industrial Engineers (대한산업공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Empirical Analysis on the Relationship between R&D Inputs and Performance Using Successive Binary Logistic Regression Models

연속적 이항 로지스틱 회귀모형을 이용한 R&D 투입 및 성과 관계에 대한 실증분석

  • Park, Sungmin (Department of Business Administration, Baekseok University)
  • Received : 2014.01.02
  • Accepted : 2014.03.21
  • Published : 2014.06.15
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The present study analyzes the relationship between research and development (R&D) inputs and performance of a national technology innovation R&D program using successive binary Logistic regression models based on a typical R&D logic model. In particular, this study focuses on to answer the following three main questions; (1) "To what extent, do the R&D inputs have an effect on the performance creation?"; (2) "Is an obvious relationship verified between the immediate predecessor and its successor performance?"; and (3) "Is there a difference in the performance creation between R&D government subsidy recipient types and between R&D collaboration types?" Methodologically, binary Logistic regression models are established successively considering the "Success-Failure" binary data characteristic regarding the performance creation. An empirical analysis is presented analyzing the sample n = 2,178 R&D projects completed. This study's major findings are as follows. First, the R&D inputs have a statistically significant relationship only with the short-term, technical output, "Patent Registration." Second, strong dependencies are identified between the immediate predecessor and its successor performance. Third, the success probability of the performance creation is statistically significantly different between the R&D types aforementioned. Specifically, compared with "Large Company", "Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise (SMS)" shows a greater success probability of "Sales" and "New Employment." Meanwhile, "R&D Collaboration" achieves a larger success probability of "Patent Registration" and "Sales."

Keywords

References

  1. Belderbos, R., Carree, M., and Lokshin, B. (2004), Cooperative R&D and Firm Performance, Research Policy, 33(10), 1477-1492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.07.003
  2. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.04.017
  3. Bickman, L. (1987), The Functions of Program Theory, Special Issue : Using Program Theory in Evaluation, New Directions for Program Evaluation, 1987(33), 5-18.
  4. Chen, X., Wang, X., and 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. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJITM.2011.037759
  5. Fritsch, M. and Lukas, R. (2001), Who Cooperates on R&D?, Research Policy, 30(2), 297-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00115-8
  6. Guan, J. and Chen, K. (2010), Modeling Macro-R&D Production Frontier Performance : An Application to Chinese Province-level R&D, Scientometrics, 82(1), 165-173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0030-1
  7. Hosmer, D. W. and Lemeshow, S. G. (2000), Applied Logistic Regression, 2nd ed., New York NY : John Wiley and Sons.
  8. Hsu, F. M. and 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008.10.005
  9. IBM SPSS (2009), PASW Statistics Release 18, Armonk NY: IBM Corp.
  10. Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology(KEIT) (2010), 2010 Performance Investigation and Analysis of Knowledge Economy Technology Innovation Program, Korea : KEIT.
  11. Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology(KEIT) (2011), 2011 Performance Investigation and Analysis of Knowledge Economy Technology Innovation Program, Korea : KEIT.
  12. Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology(KEIT) (2013), 2012 Performance Investigation and Analysis of Knowledge Economy Technology Innovation Program, Korea : KEIT.
  13. Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information(KISTI) (2008), Law-Enforcement Ordinance-Enforcement Regulations, Available Online at : http://www.ntis.go.kr/ThMain.do (Accessed 1 August 2013).
  14. Laursen, K. and 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.507
  15. 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
  16. Ministry of Knowledge Economy(MKE) (2008), 2007 Electric Power Industry R&D Programs, Korea : MKE.
  17. Ministry of Knowledge Economy and Korea Institute for Advancement of Technology(KIAT)(MKE.KIAT) (2012), 2012 Guideline of Knowledge Economy R&D Performance Index Design, Korea : MKE.KIAT.
  18. 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.
  19. $Minitab^R$ (2005), $Minitab^R$ Release 14.20 StatGuide, State College PA : Minitab Inc.
  20. Montgomery, D. C., Peck, E. A., and Vining, G. G. (2001), Introduction to Linear Regression Analysis, 3rd ed., New York NY : John Wiley and Sons.
  21. Office of Management and Budget(OMB) and Office of Science and Technology Policy(OSTP) (2012), Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Subject : Science and Technology Priorities for the FY 2014 Budget, Available Online at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/, (Accessed 1 August 2013).
  22. 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, Available Online at : http://www.ostp.gov/, (Accessed 1 August 2013).
  23. Robin, S. and Schubert, T. (2013), Cooperation with Public Research Institutions and Success in Innovation : Evidence from France and Germany, Research Policy, 42(1), 149-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.06.002
  24. 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, Economic Assessment Office, Advanced Technology Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology(NIST), U.S. Department of Commerce, Gaithersburg, MD.
  25. Ruegg, R. and Feller, I. (2003), A Toolkit for Evaluating Public R&D Investment : Models, Methods and Findings from ATP's First Decade, Economic Assessment Office, Advanced Technology Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology(NIST), U.S. Department of Commerce, Gaithersburg, MD.
  26. Shipp, S., Chang, C., and Wisniewski, L. (2005), Evaluation Best Practices and Results : The Advanced Technology Program, Economic Assessment Office, Advanced Technology Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology(NIST), U.S. Department of Commerce, Gaithersburg, MD.
  27. W. K. Kellogg Foundation(WKKF) (2004), W. K. Kellogg Foundation Logic Development Guide, Battle Creek MI.
  28. Wholey, J. S. (1983), Evaluation and Effective Public Management, Boston MA : Little Brown.
  29. 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.
  30. Wu, W., Tsai, H., Cheng, K. and 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2006.00452.x