The optimization planning of research equipment operation through the efficient integration of research equipment and scientist

  • Authors

    • Donghun Yoon
    https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i4.21504

    Received date: November 25, 2018

    Accepted date: May 9, 2026

    Published date: May 9, 2026

  • Abstract

    This paper provides a quantitative way of ensuring the placement and integration of research equipment and scientists. An attempt was made to develop methods of enhancing the research equipment efficiency by focusing on the research equipment utilization difficulty level and the research equipment utilization capability of scientists. Eight research equipment and five scientists were selected for the study. Methods and research results on how to deploy and integrate research equipment and manpower according to the ranks based on the research equipment utilization difficulty and the research capabilities of scientists are presented herein. It is believed that a systematic method of and an optimized plan for deploying and integrating research equipment and scientists, as opposed to the intuitive method, are necessary. That is, deploying and integrating research equipment and scientists according to the ranks based on the research equipment utilization difficulty level and the research equipment utilization capability of the scientists are effective. The authors are confident that an efficient and optimized deployment and integration study for research equipment and scientists will make a significant contribution to research efficiency and productivity improvement. It is hoped that the findings obtained from this study will prove to be very useful for professors, researchers, and policymakers at universities and research institutes around the world.

  • References

    1. The Ministry of Science, Technology, and Information (MoST), Di-rection and standard of government R&D investment, The Ministry of Science, Technology, and Information (MoST), (2018), 9-38.
    2. Matsusaka, J. G., “Public Policy and the Initiative and Referendum: A Survey with Some New Evidence”, Public Choice, 174(1), (2018), 107-143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-017-0486-0.
    3. Potrafke, N., “Government ideology and economic policy-making in the United States - a survey”, Public Choice, 174(1), (2018), 145-207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-017-0491-3.
    4. Liotard, I. & Revest, V., “Contests as innovation policy instruments: Lessons from the US federal agencies' experience”, Technological Forecasting Social Change, 127, (2018), 57-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.07.008.
    5. Oladosu, G. A., Leiby, P. N., Bowman, D. C., Uría-Martínez, R., & Johnson, M. M., “Impacts of oil price shocks on the United States economy: A meta-analysis of the oil price elasticity of GDP for net oil-importing economies”, Energy Policy, 115, (2018), 523-544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.01.032.
    6. Onoe, J., “Trend of Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy and Its Expectation to Academica”, Vacuum and Surface Science, 61(1), (2018), 41-43. https://doi.org/10.1380/vss.61.41.
    7. Stephan, A., Schmidt, T. S., Bening, C. R., & Hoffmann, V. H., “The sectoral configuration of technological innovation systems: Pat-terns of knowledge development and diffusion in the lithium-ion bat-tery technology in Japan”, Research Policy, 46(4), (2017), 709-723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.01.009.
    8. Hanisch, M., “The effectiveness of conventional and unconventional monetary policy: Evidence from a structural dynamic factor model for Japan”, Journal of International Money and Finance, 70, (2017), 110-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jimonfin.2016.08.002.
    9. Rammer, C. & Schubert, T., “Concentration on the few: mechanisms behind a falling share of innovative firms in Germany”, Research Policy, 47(2), (2018), 379-389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.12.002.
    10. Ringel, M., “Energy efficiency policy governance in a multi-level administration structure - evidence from Germany”, Energy Efficien-cy, 10(3), (2017), 753-776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-016-9484-1.
    11. Rommel, K. & Sagebiel, J., “Preferences for micro-cogeneration in Germany: Policy implications for grid expansion from a discrete choice experiment”, Applied Energy, 206, (2017), 612-622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.08.216.
    12. Li, D. Z. & Zhang, Q., “Policy choice and economic growth under factional politics: Evidence from a Chinese Province”, China Eco-nomic Review, 47, (2018), 12-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2017.11.003.
    13. Gui-long, Z., Yi, Z., Kai-hua, C., & Jiang, Y., “The impact of R&D intensity on firm performance in an emerging market: Evidence from China’s electronics manufacturing firms”, Asian Journal of Technol-ogy Innovation, 25(1), (2017), 41-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/19761597.2017.1302492.
    14. Weng, Q. & Söderbom, M., “Is R&D cash flow sensitive? Evidence from Chinese industrial firms”, China Economic Review, 47, (2018), 77-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2017.12.008.

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    Yoon, D. (2026). The optimization planning of research equipment operation through the efficient integration of research equipment and scientist. International Journal of Engineering and Technology, 7(4), 2874-2880. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i4.21504