From Research Project to Research Portfolio: Meeting Scale and Complexity
The article considers how the past and present tendency to focus on selecting the best projects based on the sole criterion of meritorious science may result in a sub-optimal portfolio. The authors argue that scientists need to proactively engage in the discussion over the need to improve the effic...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
National Research University Higher School of Economics
2015-06-01
|
| Series: | Foresight and STI Governance |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://foresight-journal.hse.ru/article/view/19302 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849701664453296128 |
|---|---|
| author | Jonathan Linton Nicholas Vonortas |
| author_facet | Jonathan Linton Nicholas Vonortas |
| author_sort | Jonathan Linton |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description |
The article considers how the past and present tendency to focus on selecting the best projects based on the sole criterion of meritorious science may result in a sub-optimal portfolio. The authors argue that scientists need to proactively engage in the discussion over the need to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of societal investments to ensure that the next generation of the management and decision-making process for our science, technology and innovation system is rooted in sound principles.The classic peer review process tends to provide unintended overlap and allows for an ill fit between some of the pieces and unwanted gaps to occur. Areas of high risk and high return can be missed due to their controversial nature and split decisions typically resulting in negative funding decisions. In general, high risk and a high frequency of split decisions tend to be replaced with lower risk initiatives. The authors propose herein supplementing peer review with research portfolio evaluation approaches and decision-making tools that can better assess research uncertainties and other special features of the transformation of the resulting knowledge into improved social well-being. A coupling of research quality review by peers with more systematic portfolio meta-analysis of recommended projects is both possible and essential.
|
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-9b19ea8224ca46f1b848cf5e55b56896 |
| institution | DOAJ |
| issn | 2500-2597 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2015-06-01 |
| publisher | National Research University Higher School of Economics |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Foresight and STI Governance |
| spelling | doaj-art-9b19ea8224ca46f1b848cf5e55b568962025-08-20T03:17:52ZengNational Research University Higher School of EconomicsForesight and STI Governance2500-25972015-06-019210.17323/1995-459X.2015.2.38.43From Research Project to Research Portfolio: Meeting Scale and ComplexityJonathan Linton0Nicholas Vonortas1HSE University; Sheffield University, B067, Conduit Road, S10 1LF, UKGeorge Washington University, United States, 1957 E Street, NW, Washington, DC 20052, United States The article considers how the past and present tendency to focus on selecting the best projects based on the sole criterion of meritorious science may result in a sub-optimal portfolio. The authors argue that scientists need to proactively engage in the discussion over the need to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of societal investments to ensure that the next generation of the management and decision-making process for our science, technology and innovation system is rooted in sound principles.The classic peer review process tends to provide unintended overlap and allows for an ill fit between some of the pieces and unwanted gaps to occur. Areas of high risk and high return can be missed due to their controversial nature and split decisions typically resulting in negative funding decisions. In general, high risk and a high frequency of split decisions tend to be replaced with lower risk initiatives. The authors propose herein supplementing peer review with research portfolio evaluation approaches and decision-making tools that can better assess research uncertainties and other special features of the transformation of the resulting knowledge into improved social well-being. A coupling of research quality review by peers with more systematic portfolio meta-analysis of recommended projects is both possible and essential. https://foresight-journal.hse.ru/article/view/19302research and development (R&D)peer review of R&D projectsproject portfolioportfolio-based approachresearch performance evaluation |
| spellingShingle | Jonathan Linton Nicholas Vonortas From Research Project to Research Portfolio: Meeting Scale and Complexity Foresight and STI Governance research and development (R&D) peer review of R&D projects project portfolio portfolio-based approach research performance evaluation |
| title | From Research Project to Research Portfolio: Meeting Scale and Complexity |
| title_full | From Research Project to Research Portfolio: Meeting Scale and Complexity |
| title_fullStr | From Research Project to Research Portfolio: Meeting Scale and Complexity |
| title_full_unstemmed | From Research Project to Research Portfolio: Meeting Scale and Complexity |
| title_short | From Research Project to Research Portfolio: Meeting Scale and Complexity |
| title_sort | from research project to research portfolio meeting scale and complexity |
| topic | research and development (R&D) peer review of R&D projects project portfolio portfolio-based approach research performance evaluation |
| url | https://foresight-journal.hse.ru/article/view/19302 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT jonathanlinton fromresearchprojecttoresearchportfoliomeetingscaleandcomplexity AT nicholasvonortas fromresearchprojecttoresearchportfoliomeetingscaleandcomplexity |