ارزیابی بهره وری پژوهش در برنامه های "تحقیق و توسعه" ملی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|4242||2011||12 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||11170 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Research Policy, Volume 40, Issue 2, March 2011, Pages 230–241
Relying on efficiency analysis, we evaluate to what extent policy makers have been able to promote the establishment of consolidated and comprehensive research groups to contribute to the implementation of a successful innovation system for the Spanish food technology sector, oriented to the production of knowledge based on an application model. Using data envelopment analysis techniques that allow calculation of a generalized version of the traditional distance function model for productive efficiency, we find pervasive levels of inefficiency and a typology of different research strategies. Among these, in contrast to what has been assumed, established groups do not play the pre-eminent benchmarking role; rather, partially oriented, specialized and “shooting star” groups are the most common patterns. These results correspond with an infant innovation system, where the fostering of higher levels of efficiency and the promotion of the desired research patterns are ongoing.
Companies are continually seeking new management interventions to improve their operations. Among these, TQM and BPR have been the subject of much practitioner and academic debate. Claims and counter-claims persist as to their effectiveness, and what has gone right and wrong in their implementation. Impressive reports of vast cost reductions and quality improvements are countered by scepticism and refutation. The same comments could be made about most other management innovations and change programmes. One functional discipline that has been rather neglected is the management of physical assets . Two maintenance approaches have been developed and expanded in the last decade, and it is the purpose of this paper to consider some of the evidence of how reliability-centred maintenance (RCM) and total productive maintenance (TPM) are faring. As academic and critical practitioner maintenance management literature is limited, the exploratory study described in this paper leans on the theory and practice of TQM, BPR and other interventions. In so doing, it considers factors which are conducive to or hamper their successful implementation, assesses whether these can be extended to a maintenance situation, and shows how managers implementing RCM and TPM can benefit from the findings of the study. The research follows the approach of Meredith  who studies a number of postulates proposed from a review of the literature pertaining to the implementation of advanced technologies. We analyse four case studies with a view to establishing the validity of the postulates. Our postulates are derived from the TQM, BPR, JIT and other literature relating to the implementation of new technologies and systems. Having implemented TQM or BPR or both, the case organisations could relate these experiences with their maintenance encounters. Further, TQM and, to a lesser extent, BPR have been widely used in industry. As such, when considering the generalisability of the study, many organisations contemplating a new maintenance approach will readily be able to link maintenance implementational issues to TQM and BPR. Our choice of these interventions has parallels with the study by Flynn et al.  of the ‘mutually supportive’ nature of TQM and JIT. Through ‘analytical generalisation’  the cases are used to assess the extent to which these factors apply to maintenance.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The case organisations that had earlier embarked on TQM and BPR did not find them to be successful. As part of their subsequent action they chose a maintenance intervention. Following some preliminary results which have not produced immediate answers and improvements, managers are already looking for the next programme. They should rather be looking at how their experiences with RCM or TPM can help them achieve a meaningful outcome. In the previous sections we have presented some ways of addressing these, but managers face a difficult task: they are being asked to perform and achieve in a context where often “they neither understand how their actions produce results, nor are able to influence the most volatile element in the organization — other people” [43, p. 171]. People in the case organisations will recall the inconsistencies between the assumptions that previous interventions espoused and their experiences with them: they will then compare RCM and TPM with these as a means of solving organisational problems, and be reminded of earlier attempts which were managerially conceived and which were largely unsuccessful . Without a more sophisticated conceptualisation of what has been occurring with their maintenance programmes, it is likely that these will suffer the same fate as other initiatives: a mixture of partial successes and failures, and a continual, but potentially futile search for the next intervention. As a preliminary study, this paper has attempted to establish a set of success factors for RCM and TPM implementation, and to provide some guidance for their adoption.