Main Article Content

Donghun Yoon
Korea Basic Science Institute, Republic of Korea
Korea, Republic of
Vol. 8 No. 1 (2019), Articles, pages 6-29
Submitted: Oct 5, 2018 Accepted: Feb 14, 2019 Published: Jun 24, 2019
How to Cite


In this paper, evaluation index improvement for research equipment relocation is presented and discussed to boost the effectiveness of research equipment management. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) model was designed for the evaluation index improvement for research equipment relocation, and the pairwise comparison scale was set up based on the importance of each evaluation criterion. The consistency rate (CR) was measured, and it was confirmed that the decision-making was reasonable. The improvement of the evaluation index was necessary for the objective and fair relocation of research equipment. Therefore, the evaluation index for the relocation of research equipment was designed for an objective and fair evaluation. It is hoped that the study findings will be very useful and will contribute greatly to the professors, researchers, and policymakers involved in science and technology policymaking and R&D.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details


Amanatidou, E., Cunningham, P., Gök, A. & Garefi, I. (2014). Using evaluation research as a means for policy analysis in a 'new' mission-oriented policy context. Minerva 52(4), 419-438. doi:

Arnold, E. (2004). Evaluating research and innovation policy: a systems world needs systems evaluations. Research Policy 13(1), 3-17. doi:

Barker, K. (2007). The UK research assessment exercise: the evolution of a national research evaluation system. Research Policy 16(1), 3-12. doi:

Bozeman, B., & Youtie, J. (2017). Socio-economic impacts and public value of government-funded research: Lessons from four US national science foundation initiatives. Research Policy 46(8), 1387-1398. doi:

Brofoss, K. E. (1998). The research council of Norway's use of research evaluation: an assessment of research evaluation as a strategic tool. Research Policy 7(3), 134–140. doi:

Cerqueti, R., Marazzina, D., & Ventura, M. (2016). Optimal Investment in Research and Development Under Uncertainty. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 168(1), 296-309. doi:

Chang, S., Li, Y., & Gao, F. (2016). The impact of delaying an investment decision on R&D projects in real option game. Chaos, solitons, and fractals 87, 182-189. doi:

Cunningham, P. (2008). Monitoring and analysis of policies and public financing instruments conducive to higher levels of R&D investments. The “policy mix” project: thematic report: governance, European Commission, 15.

Cunningham, P. (2008). INNO-learning platform mini-studies. European trend chart on innovation policy input report, 6.

Dimos, C., & Pugh, G. (2016). The effectiveness of R&D subsidies: A meta-regression analysis of the evaluation literature. Research Policy 45(4), 797-815. doi:

Edler, J., Cunningham, P., Gök, A., & Shapira, P. (2016). Chapter 18: conclusions: evidence on the effectiveness of innovation policy intervention in Edler, J., Cunningham, P., Gök, A., & Shapira, P. (eds.) Handbook of innovation policy Impact (pp.543–564). Edward Elgar Publishing. doi:

Kauffman, R. J., Liu, J., & Ma, D. (2015). Technology investment decision-making under uncertainty. Information Technology and Management 16(2), 153-172. doi:

Lewis, C. M.,& Tan, Y., 2016, Debt-equity choices, R&D investment and market timing. Journal of financial economics, 119(3), 599-610. doi:

Lynskey, M. J. (2016). R&D Investment in New Technology-Based Firms: Strategic and Entrepreneurial Dynamics and the Impact of Universities. Industry and Higher Education 30(4), 278-291. doi:

Meyer-Krahmer, F., & Reiss, T. (1992). Ex ante evaluation and technology assessment — two emerging elements of technology policy evaluation. Research policy 2(1), 47–54. doi:

Rigby, J., Cunningham, P., Li, Y., Yeow, J, Edler, J., Cox, D., & Roper, S. (2016). A review of the small business research initiative. A report commissioned by innovate UK final report august 2015, 25.

Saaty, T. L. (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York. doi:

Sanz-Menéndez, L. (1995). Research actors and the state: research evaluation and evaluation of science and technology policies in Spain. Research Policy 5(1), 79–88. doi:

Schatz, D., & Bashroush, R. (2017). Economic valuation for information security investment: a systematic literature review. Information Systems Frontiers, 19(5), 1205-1228. doi:

Schröder, S., Welter, F., Leisten, I., Richert, A., & Jeschke, S. (2014). Research performance and evaluation—Empirical results from collaborative research centers and clusters of excellence in Germany. Research Policy 23(3), 221–232. doi:

Silva, C. M. & Henriques, L. (1995). R&D evaluation in Portugal. Research Policy 5(1), 89–97. doi:

Stern, E. (1993). Ongoing and participative evaluation: Purpose, design and role in the evaluation of a large-scale R&D programme. Research Policy 3(2), 75–82. doi: