本文關(guān)鍵詞：應(yīng)用隨機(jī)前沿法分析評(píng)價(jià)首發(fā)基金績(jī)效及其影響因素　出處：《北京中醫(yī)藥大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

  更多相關(guān)文章： 隨機(jī)前沿 技術(shù)效率 首發(fā)基金 績(jī)效評(píng)價(jià) 因子分析 影響因素

【摘要】：目的：(1)應(yīng)用隨機(jī)前沿法分析評(píng)價(jià)2007年首發(fā)基金的績(jī)效,探討績(jī)效的影響因素。(2)探討應(yīng)用隨機(jī)前沿法對(duì)科研基金績(jī)效的分析與評(píng)價(jià)。 方法：(1)采用指標(biāo)當(dāng)量值法,將各項(xiàng)目團(tuán)隊(duì)參加人員的學(xué)位、職稱轉(zhuǎn)化為綜合分值；采用指標(biāo)當(dāng)量值法,將不同等級(jí)的產(chǎn)出賦予分值,計(jì)算7項(xiàng)產(chǎn)出的當(dāng)量值得分。(2)應(yīng)用因子分析對(duì)課題組人員平均學(xué)位、職稱、年齡進(jìn)行綜合；應(yīng)用因子分析對(duì)7項(xiàng)產(chǎn)出指標(biāo)進(jìn)行綜合。(3)采用隨機(jī)前沿分析,構(gòu)造生產(chǎn)函數(shù)及隨機(jī)前沿模型,測(cè)算2007年首發(fā)基金項(xiàng)目的技術(shù)效率,分析影響技術(shù)效率的因素。(4)統(tǒng)計(jì)分析使用國(guó)際通用的SAS(9.13)統(tǒng)計(jì)軟件包；隨機(jī)前沿分析采用目前最常用的隨機(jī)前沿分析軟件Frontier4.1。 結(jié)果：(1)指標(biāo)的選取及測(cè)量是績(jī)效評(píng)價(jià)的重要前提,本研究基于科學(xué)性和可行性原則對(duì)指標(biāo)進(jìn)行篩選。確定的投入指標(biāo)為撥款金額、課題參加人數(shù)、項(xiàng)目組平均職稱、項(xiàng)目組平均學(xué)歷、項(xiàng)目組平均年齡,其中項(xiàng)目組平均職稱、項(xiàng)目組平均學(xué)歷、項(xiàng)目組平均年齡使用因子分析綜合為人力質(zhì)量指標(biāo)。確定的產(chǎn)出指標(biāo)為發(fā)表論文、出版著作、專利、成果獎(jiǎng)、人才、課題組成員后續(xù)承擔(dān)課題及其他產(chǎn)出成果,使用因子分析將這七項(xiàng)指標(biāo)綜合為產(chǎn)出綜合指標(biāo)。確定的影響因素指標(biāo)為項(xiàng)目類別、項(xiàng)目負(fù)責(zé)人所在的單位級(jí)別、項(xiàng)目負(fù)責(zé)人職稱水平、項(xiàng)目負(fù)責(zé)人學(xué)位水平、項(xiàng)目負(fù)責(zé)人年齡、項(xiàng)目參加人的平均職稱水平、項(xiàng)目參加人的平均學(xué)位水平、項(xiàng)目參加人的平均年齡。(2)本研究選擇最基本最常用的柯布-道格拉斯生產(chǎn)函數(shù),采用BatteseCoall(1995)模型構(gòu)造隨機(jī)前沿面。隨機(jī)前沿模型通過(guò)假設(shè)檢驗(yàn),對(duì)數(shù)似然函數(shù)值為252.18,似然比檢驗(yàn)統(tǒng)計(jì)量為47.84,P0.01,模型具有較復(fù)雜的結(jié)構(gòu),有必要使用隨機(jī)前沿法。Y=0.7344,t=9.88,P0.01,模型中存在技術(shù)無(wú)效率,實(shí)際產(chǎn)出偏離前沿產(chǎn)出的因素中有73.44%是由技術(shù)無(wú)效率造成的。資金的彈性系數(shù)β1=0.0096,t=7.63,P0.01。人員數(shù)量的投入彈性β2=0.0046,t=2.28,P=0.0113。人力質(zhì)量的投入彈性系數(shù)未達(dá)到顯著水平,t=0.51,P=0.3050。撥款金額彈性與參加人員數(shù)量彈性之和為0.01421,說(shuō)明首發(fā)基金2007年投入產(chǎn)出處于規(guī)模效益遞減狀態(tài)。(3)2007年首發(fā)基金項(xiàng)目平均技術(shù)效率為0.77,中位數(shù)為0.84。2007年項(xiàng)目最大技術(shù)效率0.97,最小技術(shù)效率0.21,差距很大,各課題組的績(jī)效水平很不均衡。2007年平均實(shí)際產(chǎn)出得分為0.18分,前沿產(chǎn)出可達(dá)到0.23分,在投入不變的情況下,技術(shù)效率還有0.05分的上升潛力。(4)聯(lián)合攻關(guān)項(xiàng)目平均技術(shù)效率為0.44,實(shí)際產(chǎn)出得分為0.25分,前沿產(chǎn)出為0.57分,即在投入不變的情況下,聯(lián)合攻關(guān)類項(xiàng)目的技術(shù)效率還有0.32分的上升潛力;重點(diǎn)支持項(xiàng)目平均技術(shù)效率為0.76,實(shí)際產(chǎn)出得分為0.23分,前沿產(chǎn)出為0.30分,即在投入不變的情況下,重點(diǎn)支持類項(xiàng)目的技術(shù)效率還有0.08分的上升潛力；自主創(chuàng)新項(xiàng)目平均技術(shù)效率為0.85.實(shí)際產(chǎn)出得分為0.14分,前沿產(chǎn)出為0.16分,即在投八不變的情況下,自主論新類項(xiàng)目的技術(shù)效率還有0.02分的上升潛力。(5)將項(xiàng)目績(jī)效分為4種模式,其中低投入高績(jī)效的項(xiàng)目有189個(gè)(65.85%)：其次是高投入低績(jī)效的項(xiàng)目62個(gè)(21.6%)；高投入高績(jī)效模式的項(xiàng)目只有23個(gè)(8.01%)。低投入低績(jī)效的項(xiàng)目有13個(gè)(4.53%)。(6)本研究考慮的8項(xiàng)影響因素中,項(xiàng)目類別、項(xiàng)目負(fù)責(zé)人的學(xué)位這2個(gè)因素達(dá)到了顯著性水平。項(xiàng)目類別參數(shù)估計(jì)值δ1=-0.5272,t=-3.48,P0.01。項(xiàng)目負(fù)責(zé)人學(xué)位參數(shù)估計(jì)值63=-0.0719,t=-1.95,P=0.0256。說(shuō)明這兩個(gè)因素可以初步解釋實(shí)際產(chǎn)出偏離前沿產(chǎn)出的原因。 結(jié)論：(1)2007年基金績(jī)效水平總體較好,但實(shí)際產(chǎn)出距離前沿產(chǎn)出間仍存在23%的差距。(2)2007年首發(fā)基金總體投入水平比較充分,想進(jìn)一步增加產(chǎn)出,不能依賴增加投入。(3)項(xiàng)目類別是導(dǎo)致實(shí)際產(chǎn)出與前沿產(chǎn)出間存在差異的主要影響因素,項(xiàng)目類別越高的項(xiàng)目技術(shù)效率越低。(4)項(xiàng)目負(fù)責(zé)人水平及負(fù)責(zé)人單位級(jí)別均是導(dǎo)致實(shí)際產(chǎn)出與前沿產(chǎn)出間存在差異的影響因素。負(fù)責(zé)入水平及單位級(jí)別越高,技術(shù)效率越高。(5)投入高、難度大的項(xiàng)目對(duì)負(fù)責(zé)人所在單位的基礎(chǔ)條件、科研環(huán)境及科研人員素質(zhì)水平的要求較高；自主創(chuàng)新項(xiàng)目難度小,對(duì)承擔(dān)單位科研環(huán)境及負(fù)責(zé)人水平要求不高。(6)通過(guò)本研究將隨機(jī)前沿法應(yīng)用于首發(fā)基金2007年的績(jī)效評(píng)價(jià)實(shí)例,證實(shí)隨機(jī)前沿法應(yīng)用于科研基金的績(jī)效評(píng)價(jià)是科學(xué)可行的。 針對(duì)本研究的結(jié)果及討論,得到以下幾點(diǎn)啟示：(1)應(yīng)在結(jié)題后更長(zhǎng)時(shí)間進(jìn)一步對(duì)結(jié)題課題進(jìn)行追蹤調(diào)查評(píng)價(jià),以反映更真實(shí)全面的績(jī)效水平。(2)應(yīng)注重科研效率的提高,尤其是針對(duì)投入較大的課題,其績(jī)效水平的提高對(duì)于首發(fā)基金總體績(jī)效水平的提高是十分有意義的。(3)對(duì)于聯(lián)合攻關(guān)、重點(diǎn)支持類項(xiàng)目,應(yīng)該更多安排高級(jí)別的單位、高水平的負(fù)責(zé)人承擔(dān)。(4)自主創(chuàng)新項(xiàng)目的投入少、難度小,且對(duì)環(huán)境影響要求較低,這類項(xiàng)目適合在各級(jí)單位及各種水平的負(fù)責(zé)人中推廣
[Abstract]:Objective: (1) using stochastic frontier analysis to evaluate the performance of the first fund in 2007 and explore the influencing factors of performance. (2) to explore the application of stochastic frontier approach to the analysis and evaluation of research fund performance.
Methods: (1) the index of equivalent value method, the project team personnel in the degree title into a comprehensive score index; using equivalent value method, different levels of output given scores, calculate 7 output equivalent value score. (2) the application of factor analysis to research group average degree, title. The age of synthesis; the application of factor analysis to synthesize 7 output indicators. (3) using stochastic frontier analysis to construct the production function and stochastic frontier model, the calculation of technical efficiency in 2007 starting fund projects, analysis the influence factors of technical efficiency. (4) statistical analysis using the international general SAS (9.13) software package; the stochastic frontier analysis using the most commonly used stochastic frontier analysis software Frontier4.1.
Results: (1) the selection of indicators and measurement is an important prerequisite for performance evaluation, this study is based on the scientific and feasible principles of index selection. The input index to determine the amount of funding, the number of participating the project, project group average project title, average degree, average age group, the average group project title project the average degree, the average age of the project group using factor analysis comprehensive human quality index. The output index determined to published papers, publications, patents, awards, personnel, members of the project group subsequent bear project and other outputs, using factor analysis the seven indicators as a comprehensive index to determine the impact of factors of output. The index for the project category, unit level project manager of the project responsible person in charge of the project title level, degree level, project leader in the average age, post project Said the project level, average degree level in the average age of the participants in the project. (2) the selection of the most fundamental and most commonly used Cobb Douglas production function, using BatteseCoall (1995) model of stochastic frontier. The stochastic frontier model through the hypothesis test, the log likelihood function value is 252.18, the likelihood ratio test the test statistic is 47.84, P0.01 model has a complex structure, it is necessary to use the stochastic frontier method.Y=0.7344, t=9.88, P0.01, the existence of technical inefficiency factors, actual output deviates from the frontier output in 73.44% is composed of technical inefficiency caused by the beta 1=0.0096, the coefficient of elasticity of funds t=7.63, P0.01. the number of inputs elastic beta 2=0.0046, t=2.28, the input elasticity coefficient P=0.0113. human quality did not reach significant level, t=0.51, and P=0.3050. in the amount of funding the number of personnel and the elastic elastic was 0.01421, indicating the first In 2007 the fund input and output in economies of scale diminishing. (3) the average technical efficiency of fund project starting in 2007 0.77, median 0.84.2007 project technical efficiency is 0.97, the minimum technical efficiency of 0.21, the gap is large, the research group's performance level is not balanced.2007 average annual real output score of 0.18 points, the frontier output can be achieved 0.23, investment in technical efficiency unchanged, there are 0.05 points up potential. (4) the average technical efficiency of joint research project 0.44, the actual output score of 0.25 points, the frontier output is 0.57 points, namely in the input unchanged, technical efficiency of joint research projects and 0.32 point rise potential; key support for the project the average technical efficiency is 0.76, the actual output score of 0.23 points, the frontier output is 0.30 points, namely in the input unchanged, key technical efficiency support project and 0.08 The potential to rise; the average technical efficiency of independent innovation project for the 0.85. actual output score of 0.14 points, the frontier output is 0.16 points, namely in the eight investment under the same technical efficiency on the new independent projects and 0.02 points up potential. (5) project performance is divided into 4 types, including low input and high performance project 189 (65.85%): the second is high input and low performance project 62 (21.6%); high investment and high performance project is only 23 (8.01%). There are 13 low input low performance project (4.53%). (6) 8 copies of the project category considering the influencing factors, and these 2 factors for the degree reached a significant level. The value of delta 1=-0.5272, estimates t=-3.48 project category parameters, P0.01. project leader in parameter estimation value of 63=-0.0719, t=-1.95, P=0.0256. shows that the two factors can explain the actual initial output deviation from the frontier output The reason.
Conclusion: (1) the 2007 fund performance is generally good, but the actual output from the frontier output still exist among the 23% gap. (2) starting in 2007 the fund's overall investment level more fully, to further increase the output, cannot rely on to increase investment. (3) the project categories are main factors which lead to the difference between the actual output and frontier output between the project, project technical efficiency of higher categories is lower. (4) the person in charge of the project level and unit level are responsible for the factors leading to the difference of effect between the actual output and the frontier output. In a single level and is responsible for the higher level of technical efficiency is higher. (5) input is high, the basic conditions the person in charge of the unit of the difficulty of the project, the higher requirements of the scientific research environment and scientific research personnel quality level; independent innovation project of small difficulty is not high on the undertaking unit of scientific research environment and the person in charge of the level of requirements (6) through the research. The stochastic frontier method is applied to the performance evaluation of the first fund in 2007, and it is proved that it is scientific and feasible to apply the stochastic frontier method to the performance evaluation of the scientific research fund.
According to the result of research and discussion, the following implications: (1) after the knot should be longer for further follow-up survey and evaluation of examination subject, to reflect more realistic and comprehensive performance level. (2) should pay attention to improve the efficiency of scientific research, especially for the large investment project, the level of performance the first to improve the overall level of performance of the fund is very meaningful. (3) for joint research, focusing on projects, should arrange more higher level units, the person in charge of high level of commitment. (4) independent innovation project investment is little, little difficulty, and low impact on the environment this kind of project, suitable for the promotion of responsible units at all levels and various levels of

【學(xué)位授予單位】：北京中醫(yī)藥大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：F830.91;F224

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前7條

1 李志光;蔣景楠;;華東理工大學(xué)人文社科校內(nèi)基金項(xiàng)目績(jī)效評(píng)價(jià)與管理研究[J];華東理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2006年03期

2 林鴻潮;美國(guó)《政府績(jī)效與結(jié)果法》述評(píng)[J];行政法學(xué)研究;2005年02期

3 齊松仁!100029,孫瑞華!100029,左煥琮!100029,陳育德;投入產(chǎn)出比用于科研項(xiàng)目貢獻(xiàn)分析指標(biāo)體系探討[J];中華醫(yī)學(xué)科研管理雜志;2000年02期

4 江永真;科學(xué)基金項(xiàng)目后評(píng)價(jià)研究[J];科技管理研究;2002年02期

5 王文博;陳秀芝;;多指標(biāo)綜合評(píng)價(jià)中主成分分析和因子分析方法的比較[J];統(tǒng)計(jì)與信息論壇;2006年05期

6 何楓,陳榮,何煉成;SFA模型及其在我國(guó)技術(shù)效率測(cè)算中的應(yīng)用[J];系統(tǒng)工程理論與實(shí)踐;2004年05期

7 謝福泉;任浩;張軍果;;財(cái)政科技投入產(chǎn)出績(jī)效評(píng)價(jià)體系的構(gòu)建——科技項(xiàng)目后評(píng)價(jià)視角[J];中國(guó)科技論壇;2006年06期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前4條

1 夏民;科學(xué)基金重大項(xiàng)目資助產(chǎn)出系統(tǒng)分析與績(jī)效評(píng)估研究[D];合肥工業(yè)大學(xué);2004年

2 邱亭林;公立醫(yī)院產(chǎn)權(quán)制度改革[D];山東大學(xué);2005年

3 房卓;基于DEA和SFA的物流企業(yè)綜合績(jī)效評(píng)價(jià)研究[D];大連理工大學(xué);2006年

4 寧平;省級(jí)自然科學(xué)基金項(xiàng)目評(píng)價(jià)體系研究[D];合肥工業(yè)大學(xué);2007年

，

本文編號(hào)：1392953