Evaluating R&D — sound familiar?
From inputs to impact — R&D Performance Lab evaluates the whole logic model.
01 · INPUTS
What are you investing in?
Map your portfolio, budget, and funding concentration.
See how your R&D spend is spread across fields and TRL stages, measure how concentrated funding is with HHI/Gini, and check how much external matching each public dollar leverages with leverage analysis.
STRATEGY MATRIX
Growth vs share
X = annualized growth, Y = budget share, bubble = project count. Quadrants split at the medians.
Ranked groups
Largest first, by budget.
Share
Composition by budget.
CATEGORY BENCHMARK
Per-group detail
Growth, rank change, and strategy quadrant.
| # | Field | Projects | Budget | Share | Growth | Quadrant |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ICT | 21 | $15.75B | 45.2% | +33.1% | Strategic Core |
| 2 | Bio/Health | 16 | $8.71B | 25.0% | +30.8% | Strategic Core |
| 3 | Energy | 12 | $4.65B | 13.3% | +4.0% | Mature |
| 4 | Materials | 10 | $2.65B | 7.6% | -3.0% | Declining |
| 5 | Basic Science | 9 | $1.80B | 5.2% | +10.3% | Declining |
| 6 | Aerospace | 9 | $1.28B | 3.7% | +12.8% | Emerging |
02 · PROCESS
How well do you select and execute?
Test selection fairness, reviewer reliability, and schedule.
Track proposal success rates across the selection funnel, quantify reviewer agreement with ICC, surface duplicate proposals, and monitor whether funded projects stay on schedule.
PROPOSAL SUCCESS RATE
Awarded vs total per group
The line is the success rate; bar color is the competition tier.
Overall success
25.7%
Competition
3.9:1
Awarded
108
Proposals
420
Recommendations
- •Overall success rate is 25.7% — 108 awarded of 420 proposals (3.9:1 competition).
- •Field success ranges from 42.0% ("Basic Science") to 16.2% ("Materials") — a 26pp gap that raises cross-field equity questions.
- •Most applications: "ICT" (99, 23.6% of all proposals) at 21.2% success.
- •Success rate moved from 28.1% (2022) to 24.8% (2024) — getting more competitive.
Very competitive
0
field(s)
Competitive
3
field(s)
Moderate
2
field(s)
High acceptance
0
field(s)
Success rate by field
REVIEW SCORE RELIABILITY
Reviewer bias
Each reviewer's mean vs the overall average (orange = harsh, green = lenient).
Reviewer detail
| Reviewer | Reviews | Mean | Own SD | Bias | Flag |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1 | 40 | 6.10 | 1.24 | +0.31 | — |
| R3 | 40 | 5.89 | 1.48 | +0.10 | — |
| R2 | 40 | 5.38 | 1.20 | -0.41 | — |
03 · OUTPUTS
What did the research produce?
Count the papers, patents, products, and targets hit.
Measure publication output and quality, track patents and IP filings, track commercialization from prototype to market, and compare actual outcomes against the targets each project committed to.
Publication Output
Publications
1,247
total
Avg Citations
12.4
per paper
Top-decile
18.3%
papers
H-index avg
24
per PI
Publications vs Citations/paper — cluster map
Impact distribution
Citations-per-paper across projects — is impact concentrated or broad?
Citation concentration
Cumulative citations vs cumulative projects; the diagonal is perfect equality.
04 · OUTCOMES
Was the money well spent?
Measure efficiency, causal effect, and economic impact.
Compute cost-effectiveness per output, rank projects on a DEA efficiency frontier, isolate the true effect of funding with funded-vs-unfunded comparison, and estimate the economic return on R&D investment.
DEA Efficiency Frontier
Efficiency frontier
Cost (X) vs output (Y). Green points define the best-practice frontier.
Frontier distance — improvement potential
| Project | Field | Cost | Output | Efficiency | Output gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P079 | Materials | $80.4M | 2 | 32.8% | +4 |
| P039 | Materials | $223.2M | 5 | 39.2% | +8 |
| P076 | Materials | $153.9M | 4 | 45.5% | +5 |
| P052 | Energy | $128.9M | 4 | 48.6% | +4 |
| P020 | Materials | $330.9M | 8 | 51.2% | +8 |
05 · EVALUATION
How does it all add up?
Benchmark, attribute outcomes, identify risks, and evaluate every program.
Benchmark programs against peers, trace outcomes back through the logic model, account for attribution and time-lag, flag risk and outliers, and bring everything together in a single program scorecard.
Program Scorecard
Avg Score
63.9
0–100
Benchmark
72nd
percentile
Attr. Lag
2.4y
fund → impact
Risk Flags
9
projects
Scores & grades
Weighted 0–100 score; dashed lines mark cut-offs.
Profile — top 3
Per-metric normalized scores (0–100).
Score contribution
How each weighted metric builds the total score.
THE WHOLE LOGIC MODEL
Everything R&D Performance Lab does.
21 methods across inputs, process, outputs, outcomes, and evaluation.
Portfolio composition
R&D spend across fields and TRL stages, budget allocation.
Funding concentration
HHI/Gini concentration, leverage and matching funds.
Selection quality
Proposal success rate, reviewer reliability (ICC), duplication check.
Execution & schedule
Whether funded projects stay on schedule.
Research output
Publication output and quality, patents and IP filings.
Commercialization outcomes
Commercialization and target achievement.
Efficiency
Cost-effectiveness per output and DEA efficiency frontier.
Impact evaluation
Funded vs unfunded comparison, economic impact.
Benchmarking
Compare programs against peer groups.
Attribution & time-lag
Trace outcomes through the logic model, adjust for lag.
Risk & outlier detection
Surface risk factors and outliers early.
Program scorecard
Bring everything together in a single scored program scorecard, with auto interpretation.
ALSO IN YOUR DATA LAB
More analysis tools.
Every lab is purpose-built for a different type of analysis — same interface, different lens.
Evaluate the impact of your R&D programs.
21 analysis methods. Upload your program data and get results in minutes.