Impact ranking for non academic organizations: The First Rothkopf top 50 Rankings

See on Scoop.itDual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university


This paper presents the first rankings of nonacademic organizations according to their contributions to the INFORMS practice literature. Two rankings are given, each based on a different metric: visibility is the number of authors who list an organization as their primary affiliation; yield is the equivalent number of INFORMS practice papers attributable to each organization based on author primary affiliation. For the visibility rankings, IBM comes in first place, followed by Hewlett-Packard in second, the US Government in third, and General Electric in fourth place. These are followed by Sasol, Procter & Gamble, and Merrill Lynch. For the yield rankings, the US Government comes in first place, followed by General Electric and IBM tied for second, and Hewlett-Packard in fourth place. They are followed by Intel in fifth, Procter & Gamble in sixth, and Merrill Lynch in seventh place.


about the table:

The table lists visibility rankings for the top 49 nonacademic organizations with a seven-year score of
3.0 or greater. The score is the total number of citations for authors listing that organization as their primary
affiliation in Interfaces (Int) and in the OR Practice section of Operations Research (ORP) plus half the number
of unrefereed Interfaces columns (Int C). That is, ScoreDIntCORPC(Int C5=2. The table shows organizational
rankings and scores for 2005 through 2011 and scores for only 2010 to 2011.



Editorial: The First Rothkopf Rankings of Nonacademic Organizations,Interfaces / Informs October 2012

Ronald D. Fricker Jr.

doi: 10.1287/inte.1120.0649

See on

National trial by 12 Australian Universities measures significant economic, social and environmental impact from their research

See on Scoop.itDual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university

A national trial undertaken by 12 Australian universities has found significant economic, social and environmental benefits, or ‘impact’, arise from research undertaken at Australian universities. he trial also confirmed that this impact is able to be assessed.The 12 universities taking part in the trial comprised members of the Australian Technology Network of Universities (ATN) and the Group of Eight Universities (Go8), plus Charles Darwin and Newcastle Universities and the University of Tasmania.

The ‘Excellence in Innovation for Australia’ (EIA) trial involved 7 panels of 75 volunteers, 70% of which were external industry and business sector experts, assessing 162 case studies provided by the participating universities. Of these case studies, 87% were found to have considerable, very considerable or outstanding impact.

The EIA trial was specifically designed to judge whether the impact of university research could be assessed, and if so, whether this assessment could be completed using a panel of predominately external experts assessing research case studies.
It is seen by the universities involved as a positive first step to further investigate with Government how such a process could be implemented nationally and what principles might guide its development.





See on

Universities and Colleges as Economic Drivers; Measuring Higher Education’s Role in Economic Development

See on Scoop.itDual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university

Comprehensive examination of the relationship between higher education, state government, and economic development.

Local, state, and national economies are facing unprecedented levels of international competition. The current fiscal crisis has hampered the ability of many governments in the developed world to directly facilitate economic growth. At the same time, many governments in the developing world are investing significant new resources into local infrastructure and industry development initiatives. At the heart of the current economic transformation lie our colleges and universities. Through their roles in education, innovation, knowledge transfer, and community engagement, these institutions are working toward spurring economic growth and prosperity.


This book brings together leading scholars from a variety of disciplines to assess how universities and colleges exert impact on economic growth. The contributors consider various methodologies, metrics, and data sources that may be used to gauge the performance of diverse higher education institutions in improving economic outcomes in the United States and around the world. Also presented are new typologies of economic development activities and related state policies that are designed to improve understanding of such initiatives and generate new energy and focus for an international community of scholars and practitioners working to formulate new models for how public universities and colleges may lead economic development in their states and communities while still performing their traditional educational functions.


Universities and Colleges as Economic Drivers is meant to cultivate greater understanding among elected officials, business representatives, policymakers, and other concerned parties about the central roles universities and colleges play in national, state, and local economies.

Jason E. Lane is Director of Education Studies and Senior Fellow at the Rockefeller Institute of Government and Associate Professor of Educational Administration and Policy Studies at the University at Albany, State University of New York. D. Bruce Johnstone is Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of Higher and Comparative Education at the University at Buffalo, State University of New York, and former Chancellor of the State University of New York. Both have published several books focusing on both US and international higher education.



Universities and Colleges as Economic Drivers
Measuring Higher Education’s Role in Economic Development

Click on image to enlarge

Jason E. Lane – Editor
D. Bruce Johnstone – Editor
Nancy L. Zimpher – Foreword by
SUNY series, Critical Issues in Higher Education
Hardcover – 338 pages
Release Date: November 2012
ISBN13: 978-1-4384-4501-4


See on

Building global-class universities in China

See on Scoop.itDual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university


In 2006 China had become the fifth leading nation in terms of its share of the world’s scientific publications. Today it is second only to the United States. This achievement has been accomplished in part by a conscientious effort by the government to improve the research performance of China’s universities through a series of programs, the most important of which is the 985 Project. This paper considers the effects of the 985 Project on increasing the rate of publication in international journals by researchers at 24 universities. Using the approach of linear mixed modeling, it was found that the rate of growth in publications by lower tier universities exceeded that of China’s two most highly regarded universities after controlling for university R&D funding, university personnel size, and provincial per capita income. It was also found that the rate of growth of publications for universities as a whole increased more quickly after the implementation of the 985 Project.




We measure the research publications of 24 Chinese universities in the 985 Project. We control for university R&D, personnel, and provincial income per capita. Lower ranked universities grew faster in publications than did higher ranked universities. Publications of all universities grew faster after the 985 Project was implemented.



Chinese universities;National innovation system;985 Project;Publications



Research Policy

Available online 22 November 2012

In Press, Corrected Proof

Building global-class universities: Assessing the impact of the 985 Project

Han Zhanga,Donald Pattonb, , ,Martin Kenneyb

a School of Social Science, Institute of Science, Technology and Society, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, Chinab Department of Human and Community Development, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA 95616, United States


See on

Best Practices in Assessment of Research and Development Organizations with special section on impact assessment

See on Scoop.itDual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university

Research and development (R&D) organizations are operated by government, business, academe, and independent institutes. The success of their parent organizations is closely tied to the success of these R&D organizations. In this report, organizations refers to an organization that performs research and/or development activities (often a laboratory), and parent refers to the superordinate organization of which the R&D organization is a part. When the organization under discussion is formally labeled a laboratory, it is referred to as such. The question arises: How does one know whether an organization and its programs are achieving excellence in the best interests of its parent? Does the organization have an appropriate research staff, facilities, and equipment? Is it doing the right things at high levels of quality, relevance, and timeliness? Does it lead to successful new concepts, products, or processes that support the interests of its parent?

This report offers assessment guidelines for senior management of organizations and of their parents. The report lists the major principles of assessment, noting that details will vary from one organization to another. It provides sufficient information to inform the design of assessments, but it does not prescribe precisely how to perform them, because different techniques are needed for different types of organizations.

Best Practices in Assessment of Research and Development Organizations covers three key factors that underpin the success of an R&D organization: (1) the mission of the organization and its alignment with that of the parents; (2) the relevance and impact of the organization’s work; and (3) the resources provided to the organization, beginning with a high-quality staff and management.



2 Framework for Examination of Assessment Processes
3 Assessing Management
4 Assessing Technical Quality
5 Assessing Impact
6 Guidelines for Consideration During Assessment
Appendix A Biographical Sketches of the Panel for Review of Best Practices In Research and Development Organizations
Appendix B Importance of Alignment Between an Organization’s Vision and Its People
Appendix C Validating the Assessment
Appendix D Example of Peer Advice During the Planning Phase of R&D
Appendix E Relevant Statutes and Requirements Documents for U.S. Government Laboratories and U.S. Government Research
Appendix F The Army Research Laboratory’s Process for Assuring Relevance
Appendix G Examples of Stakeholders
Appendix H Questions Pertaining to Assessment of Leadership and Management
Appendix I Sample Crosscutting Assessments
Appendix J Assessment at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Army Research Laboratory, and Sandia National Laboratories
Appendix K Examples of Peer Review Conducted at Federal R&D Organizations
Appendix L Metrics Applied by National Research Council Panels to Assessment of the Army Research Laboratories


Special section on assessing the impact and relevance:

(section 5, page 38-41):

Addressing the following questions will be useful in the assessment of an organization’s

relevance and impact:
1: Does the organization have a process for identifying its stakeholders and customers?
2: Does it have a regular process for reviewing its programs and plans with its stakeholders?
3: Does the organization have a process for learning of its customers’ current and likely
future needs and expectations for the organization?
4: Does the organization have an explicit process for tracking the utilization of its results
(e.g., is transition to the next R&D stage actively managed and measured)?
5: Does it have a formal program for recording the history of its work from concept to final
utility or impact?
6: Does the organization have a program to conduct retrospective studies of its earlier work?



Best Practices in Assessment of Research and Development
Panel for Review of Best Practices in Assessment of Research and
Development Organizations; Laboratory Assessments Board; Division on
Engineering and Physical Sciences; National Research Council

90 pages
National Academies Press at






See on

Transforming Universities: National Conditions of Their Varied Organisational Actorhood

See on Scoop.itDual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university

Despite major changes in the governance of universities overtly intended to transform them into authoritatively integrated collectivities, the extent of their organisational actorhood remains quite limited and varied between OECD countries. This is because of inherent limitations to the managerial direction and control of research and teaching activities in public science systems as well as considerable variations in how governance changes are being implemented in different kinds of states.


Four ideal types of university can be distinguished in terms of their strategic and operational autonomy and capability:


1: Hollow,

2: State-contracted,

3: State-chartered and

4: Private-portfolio.


These become established under different proximate and background conditions such that relatively high levels of organisational actorhood are unlikely to be achieved in many OECD countries without major shifts in state structures and policies.



Minerva, November 2012

Transforming Universities: National Conditions of Their Varied Organisational Actorhood

Richard Whitley

DOI 10.1007/s11024-012-9215-5

Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

See on

The Roots, Rituals, and Rhetorics of Change: North American Business Schools After the Second World War

See on Scoop.itDual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university

Some rather remarkable changes took place in North American business schools between 1945 and 1970, altering the character of these institutions, the possibilities for their future, and the terms of discourse about them. This period represents a minor revolution, during which business school are reported to have become more academic, more analytic, and more quantitative.

The Roots, Rituals, and Rhetorics of Change considers these changes and explores their roots. It traces the origins of this quiet revolution and shows how it shaped discussions about management education, leading to a shift in that weakened the place of business cases and experiential knowledge and strengthened support for a concept of professionalism that applied to management.

The text considers how the rhetoric of change was organized around three core questions: Should business schools concern themselves primarily with experiential knowledge or with academic knowledge? What vision of managers and management should be reflected by business schools? How should managerial education connect its teaching to some version of reality?



An Introduction

The Contexts of Change

A Legend of Change Abraham Flexner

A Spirit of Change Hutchinss University of Chicago

An Incubator of Change The RAND Corporation

An Engine of Change The Ford Foundation

A Poster Child of Change GSIA

Spreading the Gospel of Change

The Rhetoric of Reality

The Rhetoric of Relevance

The Rhetoric of Professionalism

The Lessons of History



The Roots, Rituals, and Rhetorics of Change
North American Business Schools After the Second World War

Mie Augier and James G. March,

Stanford University Press, 201, ISBN: 9780804776165


See on

Business Schools in a Changing Global World: Best Practice vs. Irrelevant Knowledge?

See on Scoop.itDual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university

We face a new world with unprecedented global growth and radical innovations, a global environment much different from when business schools were initially created 100 years ago where growth and innovation tended to be linear and very predictable by research and theories. Now we see more and more prominent business leaders that even have no business degrees, represented by well-travelling engineers, scientists, artists, and even musicians. Outside the top well-funded business schools that capitalizing on a brand of long history, which form of class of professional schools among leading universities, with cross appointments in areas like history, economics, psychology, and sociology, and have Centers of Excellence with high critical mass of faculty, most other business schools produce research in journals that management never reads, on issues that border on the metaphysical, and now face rising irrelevance because of brand dilution and talent challenges from fast growth and radical innovations. By proposing a few suggestions for business education and research, we call for more proactive interactions with prominent business leaders, and to encourage their direct participation in the process of business education and research.



McMillan, Charles J. and Chen, Victor Zitian, Business Schools in a Changing Global World: Best Practice vs. Irrelevant Knowledge? (2012). 1st EFMD Higher Education Research Conference, 14th – 15th February 2012, Lorange Institute of Business, Zurich, Switzerland. Available at SSRN:


See on

Governing Universities Globally; Organizations, Regulation and Rankings

See on Scoop.itDual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university

‘Governing Universities Globally provides a comprehensive account of higher education in the world today and successfully demonstrates how the study of universities now needs to acknowledge to the global environment.’
– Andrew Steven Gunn, Political StudiesContents
Contents: Introduction Part I: Globalization and Regulatory Governance 1. Universities in the Globalizing World 2. World Models of University Governance 3. Global Regulatory Governance 4. Transnational Governance in Higher Education Systems: Europe and the OECD Part II: Standards, Models and Rankings 5. University League Tables 6. The Impact of Rankings on Institutional Behaviour and Policies 7. Global Rankings and Regulating the World-class University 8. Conclusion: Global Regulatory Futures Bibliography Index


The book explores the growing influence of global regulatory governance – governmental and private – on universities and national higher education systems. It considers processes of purposeful standardization, normative internalization and markets as solutions for coordination and collective action problems, as well as hierarchical command. A range of university systems, world models and organizations, particularly those associated with Europe and the OECD are examined, with particular emphasis on the growth of national and global league tables and similar rankings of higher education institutions as a form of regulation. Governance globally is found to operate through ‘steerage’, networks, deliberation and communities of the knowledgeable and the expert.

The comprehensive coverage of global university governance includes conceptual, theoretical and empirical analyses that will be invaluable to higher education researchers and students, and to public policy academics, students and practitioners. Global governance analysts, global business and management postgraduates, as well as regulation theorists and practitioners will also find this book to be of great interest.




Governing Universities Globally

Organizations, Regulation and Rankings

Roger King

Roger King, Visiting Professor, University of Bath, Visiting Professor, Open University, Research Associate, London School of Economics and Political Science, UK and Visiting Professor, University of Queensland, Australia

2009 256 pp Hardback 978 1 84720 739 5
2010 Paperback 978 1 84980 884 2


See on

Towards an Integrative Model of Knowledge Transfer : A Comparative Study of Australian and UK Universities

See on Scoop.itDual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university


This paper aims to contribute towards the advancement of an efficient architecture of a single market for knowledge through the development of an integrative model of knowledge transfer. Within this aim, several points of departure can be singled out. One, the article builds on the call of the European Commission to improve the European market for KT between research institutions and industry. Two, various barriers exist that hinder efficient KT in Europe, especially in transition economies that recently joined the EU where the issues of restructuring higher education, building trust between business and academia, and implementing the respective legislature are enduring. The research objectives were to explore (i) the process of knowledge transfer in universities, including the nature of tensions, obstacles and incentives, (ii) the relationships between key stakeholders in the KT market and (iii) the meaning/reality that is construed as a result of these relationships. To address the above research objectives, grounded theory research was undertaken in four universities in the UK and one in Australia. Coding of the data revealed thirteen constructs, which became the building blocks of the emergent integrative model of knowledge transfer. In an attempt to bring it to a higher level of generalizability, the integrative model of KT is further conceptualized from a ‘sociology of markets’ perspective resulting in an emergent architecture of a single market for knowledge. Future research is called for to test and validate the emergent theories.



Towards an Integrative Model of Knowledge Transfer : A Comparative Study of Australian and UK Universities

Turcan, Romeo V.VBN,

Aalborg University,

The Faculty of Social Sciences,

Department of Business and Management

Heslop, BenResearch School of Physical Sciences & Engineering, Australian National University




See on

RSS Business School News

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
Locations of Site Visitors

Altmetric Related stuf

if(typeof(AltmetricWidget) !== 'undefined'){ window.AltmetricWidget489 = new AltmetricWidget("AltmetricWidget489"); }}

%d bloggers like this: