Journal of Intelligent Financial Management

Journal of Intelligent Financial Management

Smart Modeling of Financing for Research and Innovation Organizations: An Indigenous Approach

Document Type : Original Article

Author
Ehsan Ehteshamnejad
Science, Technology and Innovation Economics and Financing, National Research Institute for Science Policy, Tehran 1435894461, Iran
10.25843/JIFM.2025.8563.28159
Abstract
Sustainable and diversified financing is a key precondition for enhancing the standing of research organizations and innovation centers in the knowledge economy. This study aims at the smart modeling of financing for these organizations and the identification of the best practices, using an integrated approach that combines diagnosis of the current situation, adaptation of international experiences, and design of an indigenous model. In the first step, two core paradigms of the current system's inefficiency were identified: the absence of a balanced mix of funding sources and the rigidity of mission-oriented budgeting. In the second step, twelve international models were scored and ranked using multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), on the basis of six transferability criteria, by an expert panel. The findings showed that R&D tax incentives (4.52), government-private co-investment (4.32) and competitive grants (4.28) carry the highest implementation priority. In the third step, an indigenous model based on five principles and a four-layered structure (institutional block funding, competitive grants, performance-based funding and non-governmental revenues) was designed, with a tailored resource mix for each organization type: the Fraunhofer model for state research institutes, excellence programs for research-oriented universities, and co-investment for science and technology parks. The sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of the top three models' ranking across weighting scenarios. Finally, a three-phase roadmap was developed to reduce the government budget share to 60 percent and raise private participation to 25 percent over the ten-year horizon, relying on its existing legal capacities for gradual, evidence-based implementation.
Keywords
Financing of research and innovation
Smart financial management
Multi-criteria decision making
Model prioritization
Indigenous model
Subjects
DFG. (2024). Funding atlas 2024: Key figures on publicly funded research in Germany. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. https://foerderatlas.dfg.de
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft. (2023). Annual report 2022. Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft. https://www.fraunhofer.de
Ghazinoory, S., Nasri, S., Ameri, F., Montazer, G. A., & Shayan, A. (2020). Why do we need ‘problem-oriented innovation system (PIS)’ for solving macro-level societal problems? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.10.013
Heshmati, A., & Dibaji, S. M. (2019). Science, technology, and innovation status in Iran: Main challenges. Science, Technology and Society, 24(3), 545–578. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971721819873192
Hicks, D. (2012). Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy, 41(2), 251–261.
Israel Innovation Authority. (2023). About the Israel Innovation Authority. https://www.innovation.gov.il
Lecluyse, L., Knockaert, M., & Spithoven, A. (2019). The contribution of science parks: A literature review and future research agenda. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(2), 559–595.
Liang, W. (2024). Navigating excellence and innovation: A comprehensive study of China’s “Double First-Class” initiative in higher education. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 30(7), 479–482. https://doi.org/10.53555/kuey.v30i7.6709
Marginson, S. (2022). What drives global science? The four competing narratives. Studies in Higher Education, 47(8), 1566–1584. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.1942822
NRF. (2024). BK21 Four program guidelines. National Research Foundation of Korea. https://www.nrf.re.kr
OECD. (2021). Main science and technology indicators 2021. OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2023). Main science and technology indicators 2023. OECD Publishing.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill.
Tödtling, F., & Trippl, M. (2005). One size fits all? Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach. Research Policy, 34(8), 1203–1219.
TÜBİTAK. (2023). Annual report 2022. Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey. https://www.tubitak.gov.tr
UNCTAD. (2017). Science, technology and innovation policy review: Islamic Republic of Iran. United Nations. https://unctad.org
UNESCO. (2021). UNESCO science report 2021: The race against time for smarter development. UNESCO.
WIPO. (2024). Global Innovation Index 2024. World Intellectual Property Organization.
World Bank. (2020). World development report 2020: Trading for development in the age of global value chains. World Bank.