Traditionally, a project team's resource commitment and organizational diversity are thought to be helpful to project performance; however, this relationship may falter when the project performance is considered in light of both cost and benefit. This paper integrates data envelopment analysis (DEA) and analytical hierarchy process (AHP) to evaluate project performance and explores the relationship between project performance and resource commitment and organizational diversity. The empirical study of research teams in the Taiwan National Telecommunication Program shows mixed results of this relationship. Implications for project management and governmental subsidy policy in dealing with resource commitment and organizational diversity are discussed.
AhmadN., BergD., & SimonsG. R. (2006). The Integration of analytical hierarchy process and data envelopment analysis in a multi-criteria decision making problem. International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making, 5(2), 263–276.
2.
AliA. I., & LermeC. S. (1997). Comparative advantage and disadvantage in DEA. Annals of Operations Research, 73, 215–232.
3.
AllenT. J., TushmanM. L., & LeeD. M. S. (1979). Technology transfer as a function of position in the spectrum from research through development to technical services. Academy of Management Journal, 22(4), 694–708.
4.
AndersonT. R., DaimT. U., & LavoieF. F. (2007). Measuring the efficiency of university technology transfer. Technovation, 27(5), 306–318.
5.
AzadehM. A., GhaderiS. F., & IzadbakhshH. R. (2008). Integration of DEA and AHP with computer simulation for railway system improvement and optimization. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 195(2), 775–785.
6.
BankerR. D., CharnesA., & CooperW. W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 30(9), 1078–1092.
7.
BiedenbachT. (2011). The power of combinative capabilities: Facilitating the outcome of frequent innovation in pharmaceutical R&D projects. Project Management Journal, 42(2), 63–80.
8.
BremserW. G., & BarskyN. P. (2004). Utilizing the balanced scorecard for R&D performance measurement. R&D Management, 34(3), 229–238.
9.
BrewerM. B., & BrownR. J. (1998). Intergroup relations. In GilbertD. T., & FiskeS. T. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology, (4th ed., pp. 554–594). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
10.
CampionM. A., & ThayerP.W. (1987). Job design: Approaches, outcomes, and trade-offs. Organization Dynamics, 15(3), 66–79.
11.
CelebiD., & BayraktarD. (2007). An integrated neural network and data envelopment analysis for supplier evaluation under incomplete information. Expert Systems with Applications, 35(4), 1698–1710.
12.
CharnesA., & CooperW. W. (1984). The non-Archimedean CCR ratio for efficiency analysis: A rejoinder to Boyd and Fare. European Journal of Operational Research, 15(3), 333–334.
13.
CharnesA., CooperW. W., & RhodesE. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444.
14.
CharnesA., CooperW.W., LewinA.Y., MoreyR. C., & RousseauJ. (1985). Sensitivity and stability analysis in DEA. Annuals of Operations Research, 2(1), 139–156.
15.
ChiangJ. T. (1990). Management of national technology programs in a newly industrialized country—Taiwan. Technovation, 10(8), 531–554.
16.
ChoS. P., ParkS. Y., ParkG. S., LeeW. K., & SongW. H. (2009). Comparative analysis on the performance evaluation of national R&D projects. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 17(1), 121–142.
17.
ChristensenC. M. (1997). The innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail.Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
18.
ClarysseB. (2006). Study and evaluation of the behavioral additionality of R&D subsidies.Brussels, Belgium: Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology (IWT).
19.
CohenW. M., & LevinthalD. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.
20.
CookW. D., SeifordL. M., & ZhuJ. (2004). Models for performance benchmarking: Measuring the effect of e-commerce activities on banking performance. OMEGA, 32(4), 313–322.
DietrichP., EskerodP., DalcherD., & SandhawaliaB. (2010). The dynamics of collaboration in multipartner projects. Project Management Journal, 41(4), 59–78.
23.
DosiG., & MarengoL. (1993). Some elements of an evolutionary theory of organizational competences. In EnglandR.W., (Ed.), Evolutionary concepts in contemporary economics.Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
24.
EilatH., GolanyB., & ShtubA. (2008). R&D project evaluation: An integrated DEA and balanced scorecard approach. Omega, 36(5), 895–912.
25.
EisenhardtK. M., & TabriziB. N. (1995). Accelerating adaptive processes: Product innovation in the global computer industry. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 40(1), 84–110.
26.
ElmquistM., & Le MassonP. (2009). The value of a “failed” R&D project: An emerging evaluation framework for building innovative capabilities. R&D Management, 39(2), 136–152.
27.
FengY. J., LuH., & BiK. (2004). An AHP/DEA method for measurement of the efficiency of R&D management activities in university. International Transactions in Operational Research, 11(2), 181–191.
HirstG., & MannL. (2004). A model of R&D leadership and team communication: The relationship with project performance. R&D Management, 34(2), 147–160.
34.
HoW. (2008). Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 186(1), 211–228.
35.
HongH. K., HaS. H., ShinC. K., ParkS. C., & KimS. H. (1999). Evaluating the efficiency of system integration projects using data envelopment analysis (DEA) and machine learning. Expert Systems with Applications, 16(2), 283–296.
36.
HornseyM. J., & HoggM. A. (2000). Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of subgroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 143–156.
37.
HsuF. M., & HsuehC. C. (2009). Measuring relative efficiency of government-sponsored R&D projects: A three-stage approach. Evaluation and Program Planning, 32(2), 178–186.
38.
HuaZ., GongB., & XuX. (2008). A DS–AHP approach for multi-attribute decision making problem with incomplete information. Expert Systems with Applications, 34(2), 2221–2227.
39.
HungC. L., ChouJ.C.L., & RoanH. W. (2010). Evaluating a National Science and Technology Program using the human capital and relational asset perspectives, Evaluation and Program Planning, 33(4), 487–497.
40.
HungC. L., YuS. H., & GuoS. J. (2010). Identifying the top-tier groups of national science and technology program using DEA approach: A case of Taiwan national telecommunication program. In Proceedings of the 4th Symposium on Data Envelopment Analysis (pp. 242–247), January 19–21, Taiwan.
41.
JaffeA. B. (1986). Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: Evidence from firms' patents, profits, and market value. American Economic Review, 76(5), 984–999.
42.
JayneM. E. A., & DipboyeR. L. (2004). Leveraging diversity to improve business performance: Research findings and recommendations for organizations. Human Resource Management, 43(4), 409–424.
43.
JehnK. A., NorthcraftG. B., & NealeM. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 741–763.
44.
KaplanR. S., & NortonD. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard: Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71–80.
45.
KatzR., & AllenT. J. (1985). Project performance and the locus of influence in the R&D matrix. Academy of Management Journal, 28(1), 67–87.
46.
KhankhojeD., & SathyeM. (2008). Efficiency of rural banks: The case of India. International Business Research, 1(2), 140–149.
47.
KiantoA. (2008). Assessing organizational renewal capability. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 1(1), 115–129.
48.
KoellingeraP. (2008). The relationship between technology, innovation, and firm performance: Empirical evidence from E-business in Europe. Research Policy, 37(8), 1317–1328.
49.
KolbD. A. (1983). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (1st ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
50.
KorpelaJ., LehmusvaaraA., & NisonenJ. (2007). Warehouse operator selection by combining AHP and DEA methodologies. International Journal of Production Economics, 108(1-2), 135–142.
51.
KuemmerleW. (1998). Optimal scale for research and development in foreign environments: An investigation into size and performance of research and development laboratories abroad. Research Policy, 27(2), 111–126.
52.
LarsonE. W., & GobeliD. H. (1988). Organizing for product development projects. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 5(3), 180–190.
53.
LeeH., ParkY., & ChoiH. (2009). Comparative evaluation of performance of national R&D programs with heterogeneous objectives: A DEA approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 196(3), 847–855.
54.
LeeH. Y., & ParkY. T. (2005). An international comparison of R&D efficiency: DEA approach. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 13(2), 207–222.
55.
LeeY., & KozarK. A. (2006). Investigating the effect of website quality on ebusiness success: An analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach. Decision Support Systems, 42(3), 1383–1401.
56.
Leonard-BartonD. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(Special issue), 111–125.
57.
LinB. W., LeeY., & HungS. C. (2006). R&D intensity and commercialization orientation effects on financial performance. Journal of Business Research, 59(6), 679–685.
58.
LongJ. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
59.
LuW. C. (2009). The evolution of R&D efficiency and marketability: Evidence from Taiwan's IC design industry. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation17(2), 1–26.
60.
MohrJ., SenguptaS., & SlaterS. (2010). Marketing of high-technology products and innovations (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
61.
NarinF. (1987). Bibliometric techniques in the evaluation of research programs. Science and Public Policy, 14(2), 99–106.
62.
NealeM. A., NorthcraftG. B., & JehnK. A. (1999). Exploring Pandora's box: The impact of diversity and conflict on work group performance. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 12(1), 113–126.
63.
NonakaI., & TakeuchiH. (1995). The knowledge-creating company.Oxford University Press.
64.
NSC. (2007). White Paper on Science and Technology (2007–2010).Taipei, Taiwan: National Science Council.
65.
NunamakerT. (1985). Using data envelopment analysis to measure the efficiency of non-profit organizations: A critical evaluation. Managerial and Decision Economics, 6(1), 50–58.
66.
O'BrienJ. P. (2003). The capital structure implications of pursuing a strategy of innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 24(5), 415–431.
67.
PelledL. H., EisenhardtK. M., & XinK. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 1–28.
68.
PrahaladC. K., & BettisR. A. (1986). The dominant logic: A new linkage between diversity and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 7(6), 485–501.
69.
RatchevaV. (2009). Integrating diverse knowledge through boundary spanning process: The case of multidisciplinary project teams. International Journal of Project Management, 27(3), 206–215.
70.
SaatyT. L. (1980). Multicriteria decision making: The analytic hierarchy process.New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
71.
SackettP. R., & LaczoR. M. (1993). Jon and work design. In BormanW. C., IlgenD. R., & KlimoskiR. L. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 21–37). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
72.
Sinuany-SternZ., MehrezA., & HadadY. (2000). An AHP/DEA methodology for ranking decision making units. International Transactions in Operational Research, 7(2), 109–124.
73.
TeeceD. J., & PisanoG. (1994). The dynamic capabilities of firms: An introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3(3), 537–556.
ThersbyJ. G., & KempS. (2002). Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing. Research Policy, 3(1), 109–124.
76.
ThoreS. (2002). Technology commercialization: DEA and related analytical methods for evaluating the use and implementation of technical innovation.Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
77.
TobinJ. (1958). Estimation of relationships for limited dependent variables. Econometrica, 26(1), 24–36.
78.
TolooM., SohrabiB., & NalchigarS. (2009). A new method for ranking discovered rules from data mining by DEA. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(4), 8503–8508.
79.
TsengY. F., & LeeT. Z. (2009). Comparing appropriate decision support of human resource practices on organizational performance with DEA/AHP models. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(3), 6548–6558.
80.
VaidyaO. S., & KumarS. (2006). Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 169(1), 1–29.
81.
van KnippenbergD., de DreuC. K. W., & HomanA. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1008–1022.
82.
von HippelE., & TyreM. (1995). How “learning by doing” is done: Problem identification in novel process equipment. Research Policy, 24(1), 1–12.
83.
WangE. C., & HuangW. (2007). Relative efficiency of R&D activities: A cross-country study accounting for environmental factors in the DEA approach. Research Policy, 36(2), 260–273.
84.
WangY. M., LiuJ., & ElhagT. M. S. (2008). An integrated AHP–DEA methodology for bridge risk assessment. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 54(3), 513–525.
85.
WestJ. (2000). Institutions, information processing, and organization structure in research and development: Evidence from the semiconductor industry. Research Policy, 29(3), 349–373.
86.
WestJ., & IansitiM. (2003). Experience, experimentation, and the accumulation of knowledge: The evolution of R&D in the semiconductor industry. Research Policy, 32(5), 809–825.
87.
WilliamsK. Y., & O'ReillyC. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77–140.
88.
YangT., & KuoC. (2003). A hierarchical AHP/DEA methodology for the facilities layout design problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 147(1), 128–136.
89.
YuanB., & HwangJ. N. (2002). Applying data envelopment analysis to evaluate the efficiency of R&D projects: A case study of R&D in energy technology. In ThoreS. N. (Ed.), Technology commercialization: DEA and related analytical methods for evaluating the use and implementation of technical innovation (pp. 111–134). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
90.
ZillaS. S., AbrahamM., & YossiH. (2000). An AHP/DEA methodology for ranking decision making units. International Transactions in Operational Research, 7(2), 109–124.
