Microsoft Word - Apostoaie Constantin Marius_eng.doc
The importance of knowledge on the evaluation criteria in university
scientific research projects
Cristian Marius Toma1,2
1„Al. I. Cuza” University of Iasi, Romania,
2„Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi, Romania
Abstract
Scientific research is part of any university mission, at least of big universities, as it represents the
complementary element required by the learning process. A learning process based on engendering
knowledge is much more valuable and competitive than a learning process which is reduced to a mere
transfer of knowledge from the teacher to the students. The important universities consider that “the
development of scientific research as a fundamental competence is essential for survival in a more and
more competitive environment on global level and that is why, research should be part of the university
mission”1.
This study aims to highlight how important it is for the university members to be aware of the
evaluation criteria for the research projects they undertake. For this purpose, I have interviewed a
number of 55 persons, project managers and team members in the projects from the “Research for
Excellency” program and the National Plan of Research, Development and Innovation PN II 2007 –
2013.
Out of the evaluation criteria for research, the most important ones were considered to be the scientific
quality of the project and the quality of the human resources involved in the project.
Key words
evaluation, evaluation criteria, scientific research, research project
JEL Codes: I 21, I 23
Introduction
The society based on knowledge has the mission to engender knowledge, disseminate it
through education and professional training, spread and put it into value in innovations and
technological development. Even more, investments in research, innovation and
technological transfer ensure the economical development of the society. In a certain
measure, these desiderata are fulfilled due to the role played by higher education in general
and the university research in particular.
The development of scientific research increases the chances of receiving funds from
government bodies and especially from the industrial field. At the same time, the reputation
of the university and its social role is reinforced in the community it belongs to.
In the same train of thought, Bratianu et al (2007) assert that „in order to change the
scientific research in a fundamental competence for the university, a competence which
would confer consistency and power in the accomplishment of the competitive advantage,
1 Hazelkorn E. (2006), University research management. Developing research in new institution,
OECD Publishing
Studies and Scientific Researches - Economic Edition, no. 15, 2010
514
there is needed a strategic decision coming from the management, on one hand, and the
elaboration of a specific strategy backed up by an adequate allotment of funds, on the other
hand”2.
The purpose of the study
Starting from these considerations, I have made a study which aims to highlight the
importance of the evaluation criteria in scientific research undertaken in the research
projects. For this purpose,I have interviewed a number of 55 persons, managers and team
members in the research projects and the ”Research for Excellency” program and in the
National Plan for Research, Development and Innovation PN II 2007 – 2013.
Materials and Method
The first evaluation criterion taken into consideration was the scientific quality of the
research project expressed in the following:
− Adequate knowledge and up-dated presentation of the accomplishments in any field;
− Originality and innovative character of the research project;
− Relevance of the purposes of the research project on national and international level;
− Degree of interdisciplinary character (where it applies);
− Agreement between the research methodology and objectives of the project.
The second criterion under study was the quality of human resources which have to be part
of the project. Hence, there were analyzed the following issues:
− Scientific competence of the project manager, estimated mainly in the articles published
in ISI reviews and other international data bases;
− Managerial competence of the project manager, his experience and previous results
obtained in other research projects;
− Quality and experience of the research team members, estimated mainly in the articles
published in ISI reviews and other international data bases;
− Promotability of young researchers (PhD and Master students) in the research projects
with a clear description of their role in the development of the research projects.
Another important criterion we have planned to monitor was the project implementation
method. Regarding this issue, we have analyzed the following:
− The quality of the project management – taking into consideration the coherence of the
work plan and the associated activities;
− The way of disseminating the results of the project
− Feasibility and credibility of the project, taking into account the human and financial
resources of the project;
− The approach of the ethical problems of the project.
One more important criterion investigated in the study was the usage of resources in the
project, respectively :
− Degree of adequate equipment and experiment devices as well as the presence of
adequate equipment and devices in the institution which undertakes the project
− Optimal dimensions of budget chapters in the research project.
These parameters were ranged according to features expressed in percentages: very
important, important, less important.
2 Bratianu C. et col (2007), Managementul cercetării ştiinţifice universitare / The Management of
University Scientific Reasearch , Ed. Economică, Bucureşti, p. 24
Studies and Scientific Researches - Economic Edition, no. 15, 2010
515
Results and discussions
As regards the criterion ” the scientific quality of the research project”, most of the
interviewed people (40, respectively 73% ) have shown that this criterion is very important
(Tabel 1, Figure 1).
Tabel 1. The scientific quality of the research project
Criterion Very important Important Less
important
The scientific quality of
the research project
40 (73 %) 10 (18 %) 5 (9 %)
Th e sci e n ti fi c qu al i ty of th e re se arch proje ct
18%
73%
9%
Very important
Important
Less Important
Figure. 1. The scientific quality of the research project
Tabel 2 and Figure 2 present the answers given by the interviewed persons related to the
quality of human resources which should be included in the project team. 36 subjects
(respectively 68%) considered this criterion to be very important.
Tabel 2. The quality of human resources
Criterion Very important Important Less
important
The quality of human
resources
36 (68%) 9 (17%) 8 (15%)
Studies and Scientific Researches - Economic Edition, no. 15, 2010
516
Th e qu al i ty of h u m an re sou rce s
17%
68%
15%
Very important
Important
Less important
Figure. 2. The quality of human resources
Tabel 3 and Figure 3 display the answers given by the interviewed persons related to the
project implementation method, most of them, namely 34 (respectively 62%) also considered
it to be a very important criterion.
Tabelul 3. The project implementation method
Criterion Very important Important Less
important
The project
implementation method
34 (62%) 12 (22%) 9 (16%)
The project implementation method
22% 62%
16%
Very important
Important
Less Important
Figure. 3. The project implementation method
Regarding the usage of resources in the project, 26 (47%) subjects considered it to be less
important, 10 (18%) - important and only 19 of them (35%) ranked it as very important
(Tabel 4, Figure 4).
Studies and Scientific Researches - Economic Edition, no. 15, 2010
517
Tabelul nr. 4. The usage of resources in the project
Criterion Very important Important Less
important
The usage of resources in
the project
19 (35%) 10 (18%) 26 (47%)
The usage of resources in the project
18%
35%47%
Very important
Important
Less Important
Figure. 4. The usage of resources in the project
Evaluation criteria used in university scrientific research
40
10
5
36
9 8
34
12
9
19
10
26
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Very important Important Less Important
Importanta criteriului
N
um
be
r
of
m
an
ag
er
s
/ p
ro
je
ct
m
em
be
rs
The scientific quality of the project The quality of human resources
The project implementation method The usage of project resources
Figure. 5. Evaluation criteria used in university scientific research projects
Studies and Scientific Researches - Economic Edition, no. 15, 2010
518
Conclusions
The study we have undertaken has proved that the most important criterion in the view of the
interviewed people is the scientific quality of the research project (40 subjects, representing
73 % from the total of interviewed persons).
This criterion is followed, in the order of importance, by the quality of human resources, 36
(68%) of the subjects considered it was very important.
The project implementation method is a less important criterion in comparison to the
scientific quality of the project and the quality of human resources, but it does not lack
importance, as 34 persons (62%) from the subjects ranked it as very important.
Out of the evaluation parameters used in university scientific research, in the view of the
subjects, the usage of project resources was estimated as being less important, as only 19
(35%) of the subjects asserted it was very important.
In conclusion, this study shows that the most important evaluation criterion in scientific
research undertaken in research projects is the scientific quality of the research project,
followed, in the order of importance by the quality of human resources, the project
implementation method and finally the usage of project resources.
Bibliography
1. Armstrong M. (2003), Managementul resurselor umane: manual de practică / The Management of
Human Resources: a practical textbook, Editura Codecs, Bucureşti
2. Armstrong M. (2006), Performance Management, Kogan Page Ltd., London
3. Bratianu C., Curaj A., Vasilache S., Baltei C. (2007), Managementul cercetării ştiinţifice
universitare, Ed. Economică, Bucureşti
4. Bendoly E., Swink M. (200&), Moderating effects of information access on project management
behavior, performance and perceptions, Journal of Operations Management, 25, 604-622.
5. Hazelkorn E. (2006), University research management. Developing research in new institution,
OECD Publishing
6. Isoc D. (2007), Managementul proiectelor de cercetare: ghid practice, Ed. Risoprint, Cluj-Napoca
7. Isoc D. (2007), Managementul proiectelor de cercetare: proiecte cu finanţare publică naţională şi
internaţionala; capitalizarea şi gestiunea proprietăţii intelectuale: ghid practic, Ed. Risoprint,
Cluj-Napoca
8. Scott-Young C., Samson D. (2009), Team management for fast projects: an empirical study of
process industries, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 29(6), 612-635
9. Zait D., Spalanzani A. (2006), Cercetarea in economie si management. Repere epistemologice si
metodologice, Ed. Economica, Bucuresti
10. Winter M., Smith C., Morris P., Ciemil S. (2006), Directions for future research in project
management: The main findings of a UK government-funded research network, International
Journal of Project Management, 24, 638-649
11. www.ancs.ro – The national Authority for Scientific Research.
12. www.cncsis.ro – The National Committee of Scientific Research in High Education.
Studies and Scientific Researches - Economic Edition, no. 15, 2010
519