مدل تلفیقی کارت امتیازی متوازن بهبودیافته و روش دیماتل برای ارزیابی عملکرد پژوهشگاه‌ها و مراکز پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 پژوهشگاه علوم و فناوری اطلاعات ایران (ایرانداک)

2 استادیار، مهندسی صنایع، گروه بهینه‌سازی، دانشکده مهندسی صنایع، دانشگاه صنعتی شریف، تهران، ایران

3 مدیر ارزیابی و تحول اداری، کارشناس ارشد جامعه شناسی، پژوهشگاه علوم و فناوری اطلاعات ایران (ایرانداک)، تهران، ایران

چکیده

تعیین چارچوب مدل ارزیابی عملکرد جامع و نیز مشخص‌کردن شاخص‌های کلیدی آن از اهمیت به سزایی در شناسایی وضعیت موجود و نیز ترسیم نقشه راه و برنامه‌ریزی بلندمدت پژوهشگاه‌ها و مراکز پژوهشی برخوردار است که این مهم از اهداف مقاله است.
در این مقاله، با در نظر گرفتن جایگاه مأموریت‌ پژوهشی پژوهشگاه‌ها و مراکز پژوهشی، منظرهای مبتنی بر مدل کارت امتیازی متوازن طراحی شده است. در این پژوهش علاوه بر بهره‌گیری از نظرات پژوهشگران خبره در چند پژوهشگاه، از ابزارهای کمی برای اعتباربخشی به مدل بهره جسته است و از تلفیق ارزیابی عملکرد متوازن، تکنیک دیماتل و نیز مدل معادلات ساختاری، رویکردی یکپارچه برای ارزیابی و در نتیجه رتبه‌بندی مناسب عملکرد پژوهشگاه‌ها و مراکز پژوهشی پیشنهاد داده است.
بر اساس نتایج به دست آمده از موردکاوی این پژوهش، منظر مالی بیشترین تأثیرگذاری بر سایر منظرهای مدل کارت امتیازی متوازن از جمله دستاوردهای پژوهشی را دارد و از اهمیت بیشتری در ارزیابی پژوهش‌ها برخوردار است. به نظر می‌رسد این نتیجه به دلیل تقاضامحور بودن پژوهش در کشور (تقاضای ملی و تخصیص بودجه دولتی به پژوهش در کشور) حاصل شده است. همچنین نتایج مدل با ارزیابی‌های گوناگون که از سوی نهادهای بالادستی الزام می‌شود، مقایسه و نشان داده شده است که می‌تواند خروجی لازم برای این نیازمندی را نیز فراهم و الزام‌های لازم برای پاسخگویی به نهادهای بالادستی رعایت کند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Performance Evaluation Model for Research Institutes Using an Improved Balanced Scorecard and DEMATEL Technique

نویسندگان [English]

  • Arman Sajedinejad 1
  • Erfan Hassannayebi 2
  • Ahmad Ganji 3
1 Irandoc
2 Assistant Professor, Industrial Engineering, Optimization Department, Faculty of Industrial Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

In recent decades, innovation and progression in science and technology have become more attractive in developed countries. Therefore, the performance evaluation of research centers has been considered in many researches. The main role of a research institute is achieving a more competitive advantage in technology and science. Many performance evaluation models have been developed for research-based organizations in line with their mission, vision, and strategies, so far.
In this paper, the balanced evaluation framework has been provided, which includes the key indicators of the research centers. Also, in this research, organizational perspectives have been derived based on Improved Balanced Scorecard Model. These perspectives are the main aspects of the performance evaluation model.
In this research, the proposed framework has been provided by using the DEMETL technique and the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) as a new ranking approach in developing the evaluation framework.
The results illustrate that Financial Perspective has the most impression on other perspectives of the model. Moreover, the proposed model has covered the requirements of upstream organization evaluations.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Performance evaluation
  • Balanced Scorecard
  • Strategic Management
  • Research centers
  • DEMATEL Technique
[1]    Chen MY, Chen AP. Knowledge management performance evaluation: a decade review from 1995 to 2004. Journal of Information Science. 2006; 32 (1): 17-38.
[2]   Csomós G. Introducing recalibrated academic performance indicators in the evaluation of individuals’ research performance: A case study from Eastern Europe. Journal of Informetrics 2020; 14 (1): Online.
[3]   Kaplan RS, Norton DP. The balanced scorecard: measures that drive performance. Harvard business review 2005; 83 (7): 172.
[4]   Goyal P, Rahman Z, Kazmi A. Corporate sustainability performance and firm performance research: Literature review and future research agenda. Management Decision 2013; 51 (2): 361-379.
[5]   Meihami B, Varmaghani Z, Meihami H. Role of Intellectual Capital on Firm Performance (Evidence from Iranian Companies). International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences 2014; 1: 43-50.
[6]   Tzeng GH, Huang CY. Combined DEMATEL technique with hybrid MCDM methods for creating the aspired intelligent global manufacturing & logistics systems. Annals of Operations Research. 2012; 197 (1): 159-190.
[7]   Toloo M, Tichý T. Two alternative approaches for selecting performance measures in data envelopment analysis. Measurement. 2015; 65: 29-40.
[8]   Vision document of the Islamic Republic of Iran on the horizon of 1404 (Persian). (2020 September 1). Available at https://farsi.khamenei.ir/special?id=4133.
[9]   Comprehensive scientific map of the country (Persian). (2020 September 1). Available at       https://www.msrt.ir/file/download/page/1488284345-m01.pdf.
[10]    General Science and Technology Policies (Persian). (2020 September 2). Available at         https://farsi.khamenei.ir/news-content?id=27599.
[11]    Law of the Fifth Five-Year Development Plan of the Islamic Republic of Iran (2011-2015) (Persian).
(2020 September 3). Available at https://rc.majlis.ir/ fa/law/show/790196.
[12]    Program of Dr. Mansour Gholami, Minister of Science Research and Technology in the Twelfth Government (Persian). (2020 September 1). Available at    http://craqe.com/index.php/site/g_content/fcontent/374.
[13]    Kunsch PL, Ishizak A. Multiple-criteria performance ranking based on profile distributions: An application to university research evaluations. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation. 2018; 154: 48-64.
[14]    Sandström U, Van den Besselaar P. Funding, evaluation, and the performance of national research systems. Journal of Informetrics. 2018; 12 (1): 365-384.
[15]    Jewell DO, Jewell SF, Kaufman BE. Designing and implementing high-performance work systems: Insights from consulting practice for academic researchers. Human Resource Management Review 2020. In press: Online.
[16]    Gyorffy B, Herman P, Szabó I. Research funding: past performance is a stronger predictor of future scientific output than reviewer scores. Journal of Informetrics 2020; 14 (3): Online.
[17]    Sarraf F, HashemiNejad S. Improving performance evaluation based on balanced scorecard with grey relational analysis and data envelopment analysis approaches: Case study in water and wastewater companies. Evaluation and Program Planning. 2020; 79: Online.
[18]    Varmazyar M. Dehghanbaghi M. Afkhami M. A novel hybrid MCDM model for performance evaluation of research and technology organizations based on BSC approach. Evaluation and Program Planning 2016. 58: 125-140.
[19]    Fasanghari M, Mohamedpour M, Mohamedpour MA. A Novel Method Combining ORESTE Fuzzy Set Theory and TOPSIS Method for Ranking the Information and Communication Technology Research Centers of Iran. Sixth International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations Las Vegas NV. 2009; 165-170.
[20]    Martins R. The use of performance measurement information as a driver in designing a performance measurement system. Performance Measurement and Management: Research and Action. 2002.
[21]    Wu HY, Lin YK, Chang CH. Performance evaluation of extension education centers in universities based on the balanced scorecard. Evaluation and Program Planning. 2011; 34 (1): 37-50.
[22]    Zolfani SH, Ghadikolaei AS. Performance evaluation of private universities based on balanced scorecard: empirical study based on Iran. Journal of Business Economics and Management. 2013; 14 (4): 696-714.
[23]    Wu HY, Chen J, Chen I, Zhuo H. Ranking universities based on performance evaluation by a hybrid MCDM model. Measurement. 2012; 45 (5): 856-880.
[24]    Varmazyar M, Dehghanbaghi M, Afkhami M. A novel hybrid MCDM model for performance evaluation of research and technology organizations based on BSC approach. Evaluation and Program Planning. 2016; 58: 125-140.
[25]    Khoshnevis P, Teirlinck P. Performance evaluation of R&D active firms. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 2017.
[26]    Benmoussa N, Elyamami A, Mansouri K, Qbadou M, Illoussamen E. A Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approach for Enhancing University Accreditation Process. Engineering Technology & Applied Science Research. 2019; 9 (1). 3726-3733.
[27]    Lee HS, Tzeng G, Yeih W, Wang Y, Yang S. Revised DEMATEL: resolving the infeasibility of DEMATEL. Applied Mathematical Modelling. 2013; 37 (10): 6746-6757.
[28]    Ullman JB, Bentler PM. Structural equation modeling. 2003; Wiley Online Library.
[29]    Kenny DA, McCoach DB. Effect of the number of variables on measures of fit in structural equation modeling. Structural equation modeling. 2003; 10 (3): 333-351.
[30]    Ekmekçi YAD. Implementing of Balanced Scorecard: Sample of Turkish Republic Ministry of Youth and Sport. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2014; 150: 754-761.
[31]    Senarath SACL, Patabendige SSJ. Balance Scorecard: Translating Corporate Plan into Action. A Case Study on University of Kelaniya Sri Lanka. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2015; 127:
278-285.
[32]    Keshavarznia H, Amiri A, Salari H, Moradpour S. Analysis of the causal relationships between measures of financial and customer aspects in balanced scorecard. International Journal of Nonlinear Analysis and Applications. 2020; 11 (2): 103-113.
[33]    Sari RF., Luddin MR, Rahmat A. Performance evaluation of academic services in the university using the balanced scorecard: A study at an Indonesian open university. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change. 2020; 12 (12): 627-660.